Premium
Peri‐implant conditions and their relationship with periodontal conditions in C hinese patients: a cross‐sectional study
Author(s) -
Wang R.,
Zhao W.,
Tang Z. H.,
Jin L. J.,
Cao C. F.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12114
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , implant , radiography , bleeding on probing , periodontitis , dentition , peri , cross sectional study , logistic regression , dental alveolus , orthodontics , surgery , pathology
Objectives To analyze the relationships between peri‐implant conditions and periodontal conditions in C hinese patients with dental implants in place for at least 1 year. Material and methods Seventy‐six patients (mean age, 41 ± 10 years; range, 21–69 years) who received placement of 120 dental implants ( S traumann ® ), (mean 1.6 implants per subject; range, 1–5 implants per subject) after a mean period of 25 months (range, 12–66 months) responded to recall. Clinical examinations were performed around the implants and natural teeth. Periapical radiographs were taken by the long cone technique for implants, and radiographic bone level ( BL ) was measured. Comparisons of the peri‐implant conditions were performed between the patients with different periodontal conditions by t ‐test and chi‐square test. The relative risk of periodontal condition as a risk factor for peri‐implant conditions was analyzed by logistic regression. Results Subjects who presented with ≥5% sites with probing depth ( PD ) ≥ 4 mm and ≥30% sites with bleeding on probing ( B o P ) in the dentition showed significantly poorer peri‐implant conditions (58% vs. 18% subjects who had maximum modified gingival index (m GI ) 2 or 3, P = 0.003; 94% vs. 62% subjects who had maximum PD ≥ 4 mm, P = 0.008; 100% vs. 79% subjects who had B o P , P = 0.044; mean PD 3.36 ± 0.66 vs. 2.75 ± 0.66 mm, P = 0.002; and sites% with B o P 68 ± 23% vs. 36 ± 31%, P < 0.001), as compared with those who had <5% sites with PD ≥ 4 mm and <30% sites with B o P on the remaining teeth. The relative risk for subjects with the more severe and extensive periodontal conditions compared to those with better periodontal conditions to have PD ≥ 5 mm with B o P at peri‐implant sites was 23.3 ( P = 0.003, 95% CI , 2.8–192.3. Conclusions The peri‐implant conditions were significantly related to the periodontal conditions around the remaining natural teeth, which implies that control of periodontal disease is essential for successful implant treatment.