File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Residual periodontal pockets are a risk indicator for peri-implantitis in patients treated for periodontitis

TitleResidual periodontal pockets are a risk indicator for peri-implantitis in patients treated for periodontitis
Authors
Issue Date2012
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLR
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2012, v. 23 n. 3, p. 325-333 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of implant treatment in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients (PHP), with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. Methods: Thirty treated periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and 30 PHP, with a total of 117 Straumann implants (PCP = 56, PHP = 61) were matched for age, gender, smoking and implant characteristics. The PCP group was further stratified with patients having at least one periodontal pocket ≥6 mm at follow-up examination allocated to a "residual periodontitis" (RP) group, while the remaining patients were assigned to a "no residual periodontitis" (NRP) group. These groups were compared with respect to probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and marginal bone loss. Results: The mean follow-up period in the PCP and PHP groups was 7.99 years (range 5.04-14.40) and 8.20 years (range 5.00-13.46) respectively. There was no difference in mean PPD between the PCP and PHP groups, but the prevalence of implants with PPD ≥5 mm + BOP was greater in the PCP group than in the PHP group, at both implant- (27% vs. 13%) and patient- (37% vs. 17%) level analyses. Mean implant PPD was significantly greater in the RP group (3.18 mm) than in both the NRP (2.67 mm) and PHP (2.81 mm) groups. Mean bone loss was also significantly greater in the RP group (0.68 mm) than in the NRP (0.23 mm) and PHP groups (0.26 mm). The prevalence of bone loss and PPD ≥5 mm + BOP at the implant level was significantly greater for the RP group compared with both the NRP and PHP groups. Conclusions: Implants in PCP with residual pocketing at follow-up had increased PPD and bone loss compared with implants placed in PHP and PCP without residual pocketing. Hence, it is the maintenance of periodontal health rather than a previous history of periodontitis that is the critical determinant of increased risk of peri-implantitis, highlighting the importance of effective periodontal therapy and maintenance in patients with a history of periodontitis. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/167049
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.464
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.427
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLee, JCYen_US
dc.contributor.authorMattheos, Nen_US
dc.contributor.authorNixon, KCen_US
dc.contributor.authorIvanovski, Sen_US
dc.date.accessioned2012-09-28T04:02:10Z-
dc.date.available2012-09-28T04:02:10Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_US
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2012, v. 23 n. 3, p. 325-333en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/167049-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the clinical outcomes of implant treatment in periodontally compromised and periodontally healthy patients (PHP), with a minimum follow-up period of 5 years. Methods: Thirty treated periodontally compromised patients (PCP) and 30 PHP, with a total of 117 Straumann implants (PCP = 56, PHP = 61) were matched for age, gender, smoking and implant characteristics. The PCP group was further stratified with patients having at least one periodontal pocket ≥6 mm at follow-up examination allocated to a "residual periodontitis" (RP) group, while the remaining patients were assigned to a "no residual periodontitis" (NRP) group. These groups were compared with respect to probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and marginal bone loss. Results: The mean follow-up period in the PCP and PHP groups was 7.99 years (range 5.04-14.40) and 8.20 years (range 5.00-13.46) respectively. There was no difference in mean PPD between the PCP and PHP groups, but the prevalence of implants with PPD ≥5 mm + BOP was greater in the PCP group than in the PHP group, at both implant- (27% vs. 13%) and patient- (37% vs. 17%) level analyses. Mean implant PPD was significantly greater in the RP group (3.18 mm) than in both the NRP (2.67 mm) and PHP (2.81 mm) groups. Mean bone loss was also significantly greater in the RP group (0.68 mm) than in the NRP (0.23 mm) and PHP groups (0.26 mm). The prevalence of bone loss and PPD ≥5 mm + BOP at the implant level was significantly greater for the RP group compared with both the NRP and PHP groups. Conclusions: Implants in PCP with residual pocketing at follow-up had increased PPD and bone loss compared with implants placed in PHP and PCP without residual pocketing. Hence, it is the maintenance of periodontal health rather than a previous history of periodontitis that is the critical determinant of increased risk of peri-implantitis, highlighting the importance of effective periodontal therapy and maintenance in patients with a history of periodontitis. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journals/CLRen_US
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Researchen_US
dc.subject.meshAlveolar Bone Loss - Etiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshCase-Control Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Implantsen_US
dc.subject.meshDental Prosthesis, Implant-Supporteden_US
dc.subject.meshDental Restoration Failureen_US
dc.subject.meshFemaleen_US
dc.subject.meshFollow-Up Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshHumansen_US
dc.subject.meshMaleen_US
dc.subject.meshMiddle Ageden_US
dc.subject.meshPeri-Implantitis - Epidemiology - Etiologyen_US
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Indexen_US
dc.subject.meshPeriodontal Pocket - Complications - Therapyen_US
dc.subject.meshPrevalenceen_US
dc.subject.meshRetrospective Studiesen_US
dc.subject.meshRisk Factorsen_US
dc.titleResidual periodontal pockets are a risk indicator for peri-implantitis in patients treated for periodontitisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.emailMattheos, N: mattheos@hku.hken_US
dc.identifier.authorityMattheos, N=rp01662en_US
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltexten_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02264.xen_US
dc.identifier.pmid22092508-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84856861035en_US
dc.identifier.hkuros215207-
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84856861035&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_US
dc.identifier.volume23en_US
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.spage325en_US
dc.identifier.epage333en_US
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000300503800009-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridChoYan Lee, J=54974296100en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridMattheos, N=6602862633en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridNixon, KC=7005338791en_US
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridIvanovski, S=6601979085en_US
dc.customcontrol.immutablejt 130722-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats