Journal of prosthodontic research · 2024
Association between prosthesis contour and peri-implantitis in patients compliant with supportive periodontal therapy: 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, Hsiao Wei-Lin, Chen Chun-Jung, Lin Ying-Chu, Liu Pei-Feng, Hu Kai-Fang, Cheng Chih-Wen
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Poor contour of the implant restoration causes plaque accumulation and increases the risk of peri-implantitis. This study aimed to investigate whether the prosthodontic components of dental implants were associated with the prevalence of peri-implantitis.
METHODS: We enrolled 185 patients with 348 implants who underwent at least 1-year follow-up after the delivery of the prosthesis from February 2010 to January 2021. Demographic data of the patients and implants and the follow-up period were recorded. The emergence angle, type of cervical crown contour, and contour angle were analyzed using annual bite-wing radiographs. Peri-implantitis in this study was diagnosed if the peri-implant bone loss was greater than 2 mm between the bite-wing radiographs taken at baseline and the latest. Chi-square test, two-sample t-test, and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the differences and odds ratios between the peri-implantitis and non-peri-implantitis groups.
RESULTS: The incidence of peri-implantitis was 14.9% during a follow-up period of 1509 days after the delivery of the prosthesis for at least 1-year. Based on the prevalence of non-peri-implantitis and after adjusting for confounding factors, the risk factors identified were bone types for implants (native bone vs. alveolar ridge preservation: adjusted odds ratio = 2.43, P = 0.04). Sex, arch, and guided bone regeneration vs. alveolar ridge preservation have the potential for a statistical difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with implants at alveolar ridge preservation sites, implants in the native bone were more prone to peri-implantitis. Further randomized controlled trials are required to determine these associations.
METHODS: We enrolled 185 patients with 348 implants who underwent at least 1-year follow-up after the delivery of the prosthesis from February 2010 to January 2021. Demographic data of the patients and implants and the follow-up period were recorded. The emergence angle, type of cervical crown contour, and contour angle were analyzed using annual bite-wing radiographs. Peri-implantitis in this study was diagnosed if the peri-implant bone loss was greater than 2 mm between the bite-wing radiographs taken at baseline and the latest. Chi-square test, two-sample t-test, and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the differences and odds ratios between the peri-implantitis and non-peri-implantitis groups.
RESULTS: The incidence of peri-implantitis was 14.9% during a follow-up period of 1509 days after the delivery of the prosthesis for at least 1-year. Based on the prevalence of non-peri-implantitis and after adjusting for confounding factors, the risk factors identified were bone types for implants (native bone vs. alveolar ridge preservation: adjusted odds ratio = 2.43, P = 0.04). Sex, arch, and guided bone regeneration vs. alveolar ridge preservation have the potential for a statistical difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with implants at alveolar ridge preservation sites, implants in the native bone were more prone to peri-implantitis. Further randomized controlled trials are required to determine these associations.