English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background  Knowledge on peri‐implantitis bone defect characteristics and predictors is still limited.    Purpose  To describe peri‐implantitis bone defect characteristics and identify possible predictors.    Methods  Various parameters at patient‐ (age, gender, smoking, and supra‐structure), implant‐ (surface, type, connection, platform, and misfit), and site level (region, alveolar ridge position, defect characteristics, neighboring structure) were recorded retrospectively.    Results  Among 193 implants, the most prevalent defects were class Ic (25.4%), and Id (23.8%); a previously non‐described category “class Id with only one bone wall” was frequently observed (11.9%). Mean intrabony defect depth and width ranged from 4.5 to 6.2 mm and from 2.7 to 2.9 mm, respectively; mean dehiscence extent ranged from 2.8 to 7.0 mm. A total of 37.8% of the defects presented horizontal bone loss and an intrabony component; in 52.7% of the implants, total defect extent was >6 mm. Jaw region, implant position within the alveolar ridge, and implant/abutment misfit showed significant associations either to defect configuration and/or defect extent.    Conclusion  (a) Most common peri‐implantitis defects exhibited a combination of intrabony component and a buccal/oral dehiscence, while purely circumferential defects were relatively seldom; (b) implants with defects with bone dehiscence were placed more frequently closer to the lateral aspect of the ridge harboring the dehiscence; (c) implants placed in the lower anterior region had the highest risk for more severe peri‐implant bone loss; and (d) peri‐implant bone defects with only a single bone wall appropriate for regenerative procedure were relatively frequent.

Characteristics and frequency distribution of bone defect configurations in peri‐implantitis lesions—A series of 193 cases