Premium
The Influence of Rehabilitation Characteristics in the Incidence of Peri‐Implant Pathology: A Case‐Control Study
Author(s) -
Araújo Nobre Miguel Alexandre,
Maló Paulo
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12114
Subject(s) - implant , odds ratio , dentistry , medicine , incidence (geometry) , prosthesis , dental prosthesis , abutment , statistical significance , confidence interval , crown (dentistry) , dental abutments , materials science , surgery , mathematics , civil engineering , geometry , engineering
Purpose To investigate the influence of rehabilitation characteristics in the incidence of peri‐implant pathology (P‐iP). Materials and Methods A total of 1350 patients (270 with P‐iP matched for age, gender, and time of follow‐up with 1080 controls without P‐iP) rehabilitated with dental implants were included. The effect of the independent variables [Implant length in millimeters (IL); implant diameter in millimeters; implant surface (IS); presence of cantilevers; implant:crown ratio (ICR), type of abutment (TA); abutment height; fracture of prosthetic components (FPCs); type of prosthetic reconstruction (TPR); type of material used in the prosthesis (TMUP); loosening of prosthetic components (LPCs); and passive misfit (PM) diagnosed within the previous year] was evaluated through bivariate analysis (chi‐square), with level of significance of 5%. Crude odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals and the attributable fraction (AF) were calculated for the independent variables individually identified as factors associated with the incidence of peri‐implant pathology. Results The following variables were identified as risk factors: machined IS ( p = 0.015; OR = 1.46), 17° TA ( p = 0.000; OR = 3.06), completely edentulous TPR ( p = 0.000; OR = 2.49), TMUP ( p = 0.000; metal‐acrylic OR = 2.29; acrylic OR = 4.90; metal‐ceramic OR = 8.43), 1:1 ICR ( p = 0.002; OR = 1.54), FPC ( p = 0.000; OR = 3.01), LPC ( p = 0.000; OR = 4.15), and PM ( p = 0.002; OR = 20.36). The attributable fraction rendered the following theoretical potential reductions in the cases if the exposure to the variables was removed: IS (31.5%), TA (67.3%), TMUP (5.4% to 73.3%), ICR (35%), FPC (66.8%), LPC (73.8%), and PM (95.1%). Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, machined implant surfaces, 17° abutments, completely edentulous reconstructions, the type of metal used in the prosthesis, 1:1 implant:crown ratio, fracture of prosthetic components, loosening of prosthetic components, and passive misfit emerged as risk factors for the incidence of P‐iP. Eliminating the exposure to these variables would, in theory, result in a significant reduction in the incidence of P‐iP.