Premium
Characteristics and frequency distribution of bone defect configurations in peri‐implantitis lesions—A series of 193 cases
Author(s) -
Wehner Christian,
Bertl Kristina,
Durstberger Gerlinde,
Arnhart Christoph,
RauschFan Xiaohui,
Stavropoulos Andreas
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12961
Subject(s) - dehiscence , dentistry , implant , alveolar ridge , medicine , peri implantitis , dental alveolus , edentulism , alveolar process , orthodontics , surgery , oral health
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.