Clinical oral investigations · 2017
How frequent does peri-implantitis occur? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Rakic Mia, Galindo-Moreno Pablo, Monje Alberto, Radovanovic Sandro, Wang Hom-Lay, Cochran David, Sculean Anton, Canullo Luigi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis (PI) and the effect of different study designs, function times, and implant surfaces on prevalence rate reported by the studies adhering to the case definition of Sanz & Chapple 2012.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published up to February 2016, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for estimation of overall prevalence of PI while the effects of the study design, function time, and implant surface type on prevalence rate were investigated using meta-regression method.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included in this study. The prevalence rate in all subset meta-analyses was always higher at patient level when compared to the prevalence rate at the implant level. Prevalence of PI was 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level. Meta-regression analysis did not identify any association for different study designs and function times while it was demonstrated the significant association between moderately rough surfaces with lower prevalence rate of PI (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rate of PI remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition and it seems to be affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics. The identification of adjuvant diagnostic markers seems necessary for more accurate disease classification.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The occurrence of PI is affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics hence the careful assessment of the local factors should be performed within treatment planning.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Following electronic and manual searches of the literature published up to February 2016, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Meta-analysis was performed for estimation of overall prevalence of PI while the effects of the study design, function time, and implant surface type on prevalence rate were investigated using meta-regression method.
RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included in this study. The prevalence rate in all subset meta-analyses was always higher at patient level when compared to the prevalence rate at the implant level. Prevalence of PI was 18.5% at the patient level and 12.8% at the implant level. Meta-regression analysis did not identify any association for different study designs and function times while it was demonstrated the significant association between moderately rough surfaces with lower prevalence rate of PI (p = 0.011).
CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence rate of PI remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition and it seems to be affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics. The identification of adjuvant diagnostic markers seems necessary for more accurate disease classification.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The occurrence of PI is affected by local factors such as implant surface characteristics hence the careful assessment of the local factors should be performed within treatment planning.