Alberto Monje, Ana Molina, Olalla Argibay, Beatriz de Tapia, Jan Derks, Elena Figuero, Adrián Guerrero, Fernando Luengo, Eduardo Montero, Ignacio Sanz‐Martín, Ignacio Sanz‐Sánchez, Cristina Vallés, José Nart
{"title":"预防种植周炎的临床趋势:西班牙牙周病学会(SEPA)基金会使用德尔菲法进行调查","authors":"Alberto Monje, Ana Molina, Olalla Argibay, Beatriz de Tapia, Jan Derks, Elena Figuero, Adrián Guerrero, Fernando Luengo, Eduardo Montero, Ignacio Sanz‐Martín, Ignacio Sanz‐Sánchez, Cristina Vallés, José Nart","doi":"10.1111/clr.70030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo assess clinical trends to prevent peri‐implantitis in applying a two‐step survey based on the Delphi method.Material and MethodsA panel of participants aged < 45 years old selected by the Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) was asked to answer a survey with 75 statements prepared by a steering committee. Items were divided into 5 major areas: etiopathogenesis and epidemiology, surgical, implant, and prosthetic‐related factors on the onset/progression of peri‐implantitis, and self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene. Degree of agreement or disagreement among participants was reported.ResultsIn total, 44 participants responded favorably to participate in the survey. From the 75 statements formulated, 35 were agreed on in a first round (46.7%). From the 40 statements that did not reach consensus, 16 were agreed on in a second round (40.0%). Overall, 51 out of 75 statements (68.0%) achieved consensus in a second round. From these, 36 (48.0%) were in agreement, while 15 (20.0%) were in disagreement. The sections that explored surgical‐related factors and prosthesis‐related factors of peri‐implantitis yielded the highest level of conflict (9/18 and 8/14 statements demonstrated indeterminate agreement, respectively). In the sections on the etiopathogenesis and epidemiology of peri‐implantitis and implant‐related factors, most items reached consensus (14/17 and 10/13 items, respectively). The section on self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene obtained the highest level of consensus, with only 1/13 items showing dissent among the participants.ConclusionThe results of this study on the clinical trends in the prevention of peri‐implantitis showed consensus agreement for ∼70% of the statements evaluated.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Trends in the Prevention of Peri‐Implantitis: Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) Foundation Survey Using the Delphi Method\",\"authors\":\"Alberto Monje, Ana Molina, Olalla Argibay, Beatriz de Tapia, Jan Derks, Elena Figuero, Adrián Guerrero, Fernando Luengo, Eduardo Montero, Ignacio Sanz‐Martín, Ignacio Sanz‐Sánchez, Cristina Vallés, José Nart\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/clr.70030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ObjectiveTo assess clinical trends to prevent peri‐implantitis in applying a two‐step survey based on the Delphi method.Material and MethodsA panel of participants aged < 45 years old selected by the Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) was asked to answer a survey with 75 statements prepared by a steering committee. Items were divided into 5 major areas: etiopathogenesis and epidemiology, surgical, implant, and prosthetic‐related factors on the onset/progression of peri‐implantitis, and self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene. Degree of agreement or disagreement among participants was reported.ResultsIn total, 44 participants responded favorably to participate in the survey. From the 75 statements formulated, 35 were agreed on in a first round (46.7%). From the 40 statements that did not reach consensus, 16 were agreed on in a second round (40.0%). Overall, 51 out of 75 statements (68.0%) achieved consensus in a second round. From these, 36 (48.0%) were in agreement, while 15 (20.0%) were in disagreement. The sections that explored surgical‐related factors and prosthesis‐related factors of peri‐implantitis yielded the highest level of conflict (9/18 and 8/14 statements demonstrated indeterminate agreement, respectively). In the sections on the etiopathogenesis and epidemiology of peri‐implantitis and implant‐related factors, most items reached consensus (14/17 and 10/13 items, respectively). The section on self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene obtained the highest level of consensus, with only 1/13 items showing dissent among the participants.ConclusionThe results of this study on the clinical trends in the prevention of peri‐implantitis showed consensus agreement for ∼70% of the statements evaluated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Implants Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70030\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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 Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.70030","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical Trends in the Prevention of Peri‐Implantitis: Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) Foundation Survey Using the Delphi Method
ObjectiveTo assess clinical trends to prevent peri‐implantitis in applying a two‐step survey based on the Delphi method.Material and MethodsA panel of participants aged < 45 years old selected by the Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) was asked to answer a survey with 75 statements prepared by a steering committee. Items were divided into 5 major areas: etiopathogenesis and epidemiology, surgical, implant, and prosthetic‐related factors on the onset/progression of peri‐implantitis, and self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene. Degree of agreement or disagreement among participants was reported.ResultsIn total, 44 participants responded favorably to participate in the survey. From the 75 statements formulated, 35 were agreed on in a first round (46.7%). From the 40 statements that did not reach consensus, 16 were agreed on in a second round (40.0%). Overall, 51 out of 75 statements (68.0%) achieved consensus in a second round. From these, 36 (48.0%) were in agreement, while 15 (20.0%) were in disagreement. The sections that explored surgical‐related factors and prosthesis‐related factors of peri‐implantitis yielded the highest level of conflict (9/18 and 8/14 statements demonstrated indeterminate agreement, respectively). In the sections on the etiopathogenesis and epidemiology of peri‐implantitis and implant‐related factors, most items reached consensus (14/17 and 10/13 items, respectively). The section on self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene obtained the highest level of consensus, with only 1/13 items showing dissent among the participants.ConclusionThe results of this study on the clinical trends in the prevention of peri‐implantitis showed consensus agreement for ∼70% of the statements evaluated.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.