José Lucas de Medeiros Dantas, Guilherme Carlos Beiruth Freire, Patrícia dos Santos Calderon, Poliana Mendes Duarte, Bruno César de Vasconcelos Gurgel
{"title":"使用种植体疾病风险评估（IDRA）工具对患者种植体周围疾病风险进行回顾性评估：一项队列研究。","authors":"José Lucas de Medeiros Dantas, Guilherme Carlos Beiruth Freire, Patrícia dos Santos Calderon, Poliana Mendes Duarte, Bruno César de Vasconcelos Gurgel","doi":"10.1111/cid.13371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool was designed to assess an individual's risk of developing peri-implant diseases by evaluating and integrating multiple risk factors. This study aimed to evaluate the IDRA tool to determine the risk of developing peri-implant disease in patients rehabilitated with dental implants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted, collecting data from 92 patients with 92 selected dental implants. Data included the history of periodontitis, sites with bleeding on probing (BoP), teeth and/or implants with probing depths (PDs) ≥ 5 mm, alveolar bone loss relative to the patient's age, susceptibility to periodontitis, the frequency of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), the distance from the restorative margin (RM) of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest (MBC), and factors related to the prosthesis itself. Additionally, the validated instrument periodontal risk assessment (PRA) was employed for comparison. Statistical analyses utilized Chi-square, Mann–Whitney, and ROC curve.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Outcomes indicated that 62 implants (67.4%) were classified as high-risk. Among the IDRA parameters, history of periodontitis was the primary factor contributing to an increased risk (<i>p</i> < 0.001). IDRA revealed high sensitivity (100%) and low specificity (63%) (AUC = 0.685; 95% CI: 0.554–0.816; <i>p</i> = 0.047), and there was a low agreement between the IDRA and PRA tools (Kappa = 0.123; <i>p</i> = 0.014). The peri-implant disease developed in 16 implants with 5.44 (±2.50) years of follow-up, however, no significant association was observed between the high- and low-medium risk groups and the occurrence of peri-implant diseases.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Most of the evaluated implants presented high IDRA risk. The IDRA tool exhibited high sensitivity and low specificity; no significant association was observed between the risk profile and the development of peri-implant diseases.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"26 5","pages":"1056-1066"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrospective assessment of patients' risk for peri-implant diseases using the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A cohort study\",\"authors\":\"José Lucas de Medeiros Dantas, Guilherme Carlos Beiruth Freire, Patrícia dos Santos Calderon, Poliana Mendes Duarte, Bruno César de Vasconcelos Gurgel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool was designed to assess an individual's risk of developing peri-implant diseases by evaluating and integrating multiple risk factors. This study aimed to evaluate the IDRA tool to determine the risk of developing peri-implant disease in patients rehabilitated with dental implants.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted, collecting data from 92 patients with 92 selected dental implants. Data included the history of periodontitis, sites with bleeding on probing (BoP), teeth and/or implants with probing depths (PDs) ≥ 5 mm, alveolar bone loss relative to the patient's age, susceptibility to periodontitis, the frequency of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), the distance from the restorative margin (RM) of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest (MBC), and factors related to the prosthesis itself. Additionally, the validated instrument periodontal risk assessment (PRA) was employed for comparison. Statistical analyses utilized Chi-square, Mann–Whitney, and ROC curve.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Outcomes indicated that 62 implants (67.4%) were classified as high-risk. Among the IDRA parameters, history of periodontitis was the primary factor contributing to an increased risk (<i>p</i> < 0.001). IDRA revealed high sensitivity (100%) and low specificity (63%) (AUC = 0.685; 95% CI: 0.554–0.816; <i>p</i> = 0.047), and there was a low agreement between the IDRA and PRA tools (Kappa = 0.123; <i>p</i> = 0.014). The peri-implant disease developed in 16 implants with 5.44 (±2.50) years of follow-up, however, no significant association was observed between the high- and low-medium risk groups and the occurrence of peri-implant diseases.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Most of the evaluated implants presented high IDRA risk. The IDRA tool exhibited high sensitivity and low specificity; no significant association was observed between the risk profile and the development of peri-implant diseases.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"26 5\",\"pages\":\"1056-1066\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13371\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13371","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Retrospective assessment of patients' risk for peri-implant diseases using the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A cohort study
Introduction
The implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool was designed to assess an individual's risk of developing peri-implant diseases by evaluating and integrating multiple risk factors. This study aimed to evaluate the IDRA tool to determine the risk of developing peri-implant disease in patients rehabilitated with dental implants.
Methods
A retrospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted, collecting data from 92 patients with 92 selected dental implants. Data included the history of periodontitis, sites with bleeding on probing (BoP), teeth and/or implants with probing depths (PDs) ≥ 5 mm, alveolar bone loss relative to the patient's age, susceptibility to periodontitis, the frequency of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), the distance from the restorative margin (RM) of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest (MBC), and factors related to the prosthesis itself. Additionally, the validated instrument periodontal risk assessment (PRA) was employed for comparison. Statistical analyses utilized Chi-square, Mann–Whitney, and ROC curve.
Results
Outcomes indicated that 62 implants (67.4%) were classified as high-risk. Among the IDRA parameters, history of periodontitis was the primary factor contributing to an increased risk (p < 0.001). IDRA revealed high sensitivity (100%) and low specificity (63%) (AUC = 0.685; 95% CI: 0.554–0.816; p = 0.047), and there was a low agreement between the IDRA and PRA tools (Kappa = 0.123; p = 0.014). The peri-implant disease developed in 16 implants with 5.44 (±2.50) years of follow-up, however, no significant association was observed between the high- and low-medium risk groups and the occurrence of peri-implant diseases.
Conclusion
Most of the evaluated implants presented high IDRA risk. The IDRA tool exhibited high sensitivity and low specificity; no significant association was observed between the risk profile and the development of peri-implant diseases.
期刊介绍：
The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal.
The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to:
New scientific developments relating to bone
Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues
Computer aided implant designs
Computer aided prosthetic designs
Immediate implant loading
Immediate implant placement
Materials relating to bone induction and conduction
New surgical methods relating to implant placement
New materials and methods relating to implant restorations
Methods for determining implant stability
A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
