Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2023
Prevalence of peri-implantitis after alveolar ridge preservation at periodontitis and nonperiodontitis extraction sites: A retrospective cohort study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chou Yu-Hsiang, Chen Yan-Jun, Pan Cheng-Pin, Yen Wen-Hsi, Liu Pei-Feng, Feng I-Jung, Lin Ying-Chu, Hu Kai-Fang
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Periodontitis is the main indication for dental extraction and often leads to peri-implantitis (PI). Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) is an effective means of preserving ridge dimensions after extraction. However, whether PI prevalence is lower after ARP for extraction after periodontitis remains unclear. This study investigated PI after ARP in patients with periodontitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study explored the 138 dental implants of 113 patients. The reasons for extraction were categorized as periodontitis or nonperiodontitis. All implants were placed at sites treated using ARP. PI was diagnosed on the basis of radiographic bone loss of ≥3 mm, as determined through comparison of standardized bitewing radiographs obtained immediately after insertion with those obtained after at least 6 months. Chi-square and two-sample t testing and generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model were employed to identify risk factors for PI. Statistical significance was indicated by p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence was 24.6% (n = 34). The GEE univariate logistic regression demonstrated that implant sites and implant types were significantly associated with PI (premolar vs. molar: crude odds ratios [OR] = 5.27, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.15-12.87, p = 0.0003; bone level vs. tissue level: crude OR = 5.08, 95% CI = 2.10-12.24; p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment for confounding factors, the risks of PI were significantly associated with implant sites (premolar vs. molar: adjusted OR [AOR] = 4.62, 95% CI = 1.74-12.24; p = 0.002) and implant types (bone level vs. tissue level: AOR = 6.46, 95% CI = 1.67-25.02; p = 0.007). The reason for dental extraction-that is, periodontitis or nonperiodontitis-was not significantly associated with PI.
CONCLUSION: ARP reduces the incidence of periodontitis-related PI at extraction sites. To address the limitations of our study, consistent and prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study explored the 138 dental implants of 113 patients. The reasons for extraction were categorized as periodontitis or nonperiodontitis. All implants were placed at sites treated using ARP. PI was diagnosed on the basis of radiographic bone loss of ≥3 mm, as determined through comparison of standardized bitewing radiographs obtained immediately after insertion with those obtained after at least 6 months. Chi-square and two-sample t testing and generalized estimating equations (GEE) logistic regression model were employed to identify risk factors for PI. Statistical significance was indicated by p < 0.05.
RESULTS: The overall PI prevalence was 24.6% (n = 34). The GEE univariate logistic regression demonstrated that implant sites and implant types were significantly associated with PI (premolar vs. molar: crude odds ratios [OR] = 5.27, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 2.15-12.87, p = 0.0003; bone level vs. tissue level: crude OR = 5.08, 95% CI = 2.10-12.24; p = 0.003, respectively). After adjustment for confounding factors, the risks of PI were significantly associated with implant sites (premolar vs. molar: adjusted OR [AOR] = 4.62, 95% CI = 1.74-12.24; p = 0.002) and implant types (bone level vs. tissue level: AOR = 6.46, 95% CI = 1.67-25.02; p = 0.007). The reason for dental extraction-that is, periodontitis or nonperiodontitis-was not significantly associated with PI.
CONCLUSION: ARP reduces the incidence of periodontitis-related PI at extraction sites. To address the limitations of our study, consistent and prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted.