Article

Outcome of implant therapy in patients with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Aalborg Hospital, Aarhus University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.12). 11/2006; 17 Suppl 2(S2):104-23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01347.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It is frequently debated whether implant treatment in individuals with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis is characterized by an increased incidence of implant loss and peri-implantitis.
The objective of the present systematic review was to assess whether individuals with previous tooth loss due to periodontitis have an increased risk of loss of suprastructures, loss of implants, peri-implantitis, and peri-implant marginal bone loss as compared with individuals with previous tooth loss due to reasons other than periodontitis.
Studies considered for inclusion were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed) and relevant journals were hand searched. Moreover, reference lists of articles selected for full-text screening as well as previously published reviews relevant for the present systematic review were searched. The search was performed by one reviewer and was restricted to human studies published from January 1, 1980 to January 1, 2006. No language restrictions were applied.
Prospective and retrospective cohort studies with at least a 5-year follow-up comparing the outcome of implant treatment in individuals with periodontitis-associated and non-periodontitis-associated tooth loss, respectively, were included. The outcome measures were survival of suprastructures, survival of implants, occurrence of peri-implantitis, and peri-implant marginal bone loss. The 5- and 10-year time points were evaluated.
Screening of eligible studies, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two of the authors. The authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random effect models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Two studies with a 5- and 10-year follow-up, respectively, were identified including a total of 33 patients with tooth loss due to periodontitis and 70 patients with non-periodontitis-associated tooth loss. There was no significant difference in the survival of the suprastructures after 5 years. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the survival of the implants after 5 and 10 years. However, there were significantly more patients affected by peri-implantitis in the group with periodontitis-associated tooth loss during the 10-year follow-up period, risk ratio (RR) 9 (95% CI 3.94-20.57). Moreover, significantly increased peri-implant marginal bone loss was observed in patients with periodontitis-associated tooth loss after 5 years, mean difference 0.5 mm (95% CI 0.06-0.94).
The survival of the suprastructures and the implants was not significantly different in individuals with periodontitis-associated and non-periodontitis-associated tooth loss. However, significantly increased incidence of peri-implantitis and significantly increased peri-implant marginal bone loss were revealed in individuals with periodontitis-associated tooth loss. The small sample size and the methodological quality assessment of the two studies suggest that the results should be interpreted with caution. Consequently, further long-term studies focusing particularly on the outcome of implant treatment in young adults with aggressive periodontitis are needed before final conclusions can be drawn about the outcome of implant treatment in patients with a history of periodontitis.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Palle Holmstrup, Sep 05, 2014
2 Followers
 · 
114 Views
  • Source
    • "may affect peri-implant resorption (Schou et al. 2006), because the bacterial contamination of the implant–abutment junction from the oral cavity was shown to trigger hard tissue response (Cochran et al. 1997). Many strategies have been advocated to clinically minimize the effect of this contamination: mechanical improvement of the implant/abutment connection stability (Van Assche et al. 2011), implant/abutment microgap shifting from the vital bone (Degidi et al. 2008; Vigolo & Givani 2009; Canullo et al. 2010a), diminishing times of the abutment dis/reconnection (Canullo et al. 2010b); nevertheless, a minimal bone resorption (0.5 mm) has been observed in longitudinal analysis (Annibali et al. 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A lack of evidence is present in literature regarding the clinical relevance of micropollution and bacterial contamination present on customized titanium abutments following laboratory stages and steaming cleaning procedures. To preserve abutments from such pollutants, plasma of argon cleaning of customized abutments was advocated. The aim of this prospective, randomized, match-paired, triple-blinded, controlled, clinical trial is to longitudinally assess radiographical marginal bone-level changes around implants restored according to the platform switching and "one-abutment-one-time" concepts, using commercially available abutments, with and without plasma of argon cleaning treatment after customization. Thirty patients with thin gingival biotype, a history of periodontal disease, and in general good health received one implant in the anterior maxilla or premolar region. Patients were randomly assigned to control (abutment subjected only to usually adopted cleaning protocol by steam) and test group (abutment subjected to plasma of argon treatment). Periapical standardized digital radiographs were taken at the time of crown connection (T0 ), 6 (T1 ) and 24 months after the final restoration (T2 ). Average mesial-distal bone-level changes mean values with standard deviations (SD) were calculated. The Mann-Whitney U-test was selected to identify differences in bone-level changes between test and control groups. An average interproximal bone loss of 0.16 mm (SD: 0.17) and 0.07 mm (SD: 0.34) was revealed in the control and test group at 6 months (T1 ), respectively, while after 24 months, groups showed a mean bone-level changes of 0.38 mm (SD: 0.44) and 0.11 mm (SD: 0.14), respectively. Statistically significant differences among control and test groups were found at both time points. Intergroup comparison relived absence of statistically significant difference. Plasma-cleaning treatment of implant titanium abutments, together with platform switching and one-abutment-one-time concepts, could be favorable in terms of hard-tissue-level changes, also in critical conditions such as in patients with a history of periodontal disease, presenting thin gingival biotype.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 11/2013; 00. DOI:10.1111/clr.12290 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Ito et al. (2011) reported that most of the patients who requested dental implant treatment had been suffering from periodontal disease. It has been reported that patients with periodontal disease are more susceptible to peri-implantitis (Hardt et al. 2002; Schou et al. 2006). Moreover, microbiological studies documented a correlation between failed implant therapy and periodontal pathogens (Mombelli & Lang 1998; Quirynen et al. 2002, 2006; Shibli et al. 2008). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective Periodontal pathogens in dental plaque are the main causative agents of periodontitis and peri-implantitis. Detection of the presence of such periodontal pathogens early would serve as a useful tool in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate whether the periodontal pathogen levels in saliva were correlated with the periodontal status of patients receiving implant treatment. Materials and Methods A total of 291 patients visiting Tokyo Dental College Chiba Hospital were divided into four groups: a no-periodontitis (np) group, a mild-periodontitis (mip) group, a moderate-periodontitis (mop) group, and a severe-periodontitis (sp) group. The levels of the following five periodontal pathogens in saliva were evaluated using real-time polymerase chain reaction: Porphyromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Prevotella intermedia. Results The levels of P. gingivalis and T. forsythia were significantly higher in mop group than in np group (P < 0.05). The levels of all periodontal pathogens tested except A. actinomycetemcomitans were significantly higher in sp group than in np group (P < 0.05). Conclusion The detection levels of the periodontal pathogens targeted in saliva samples were correlated with the periodontal status. This suggests that using saliva to screen for periodontopathic bacteria offers an easier-to-use clinical tool than the paper point method in the diagnosis and treatment of periodontitis and peri-implantitis.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 06/2013; 25(8). DOI:10.1111/clr.12198 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Missing teeth can be replaced successfully with reconstructions anchored on osseointegrated implants. Several narrative and systematic reviews are available reporting the survival of implants in relation to subjectspecific factors such as tobacco smoking, systemic diseases, or periodontitis (Mombelli & Cionca 2006; Schou et al. 2006; Karoussis et al. 2007; Klokkevold & Han 2007; Quirynen et al. 2007; Ong et al. 2008; Bornstein et al. 2009; Heitz-Mayfield & Huynh-Ba 2009; Safii et al. 2010). The total literature available today suggests that over a period of 10 years roughly 1 of 20 implants is lost. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review the literature on the prevalence and incidence of peri-implantitis. Out of 322 potentially relevant publications we identified 29 articles concerning 23 studies, with information on the presence of signs of peri-implantitis in populations of at least 20 cases. All studies provided data from convenience samples, typically from patients who were treated in a clinical center during a certain period, and most data were cross-sectional or collected retrospectively. Based on the reviewed papers one may state that the prevalence of peri-implantitis seems to be in the order of 10% implants and 20% patients during 5-10 years after implant placement but the individual reported figures are rather variable, not easily comparable and not suitable for meta-analysis. Factors that should be considered to affect prevalence figures are the disease definition, the differential diagnosis, the chosen thresholds for probing depths and bone loss, differences in treatment methods and aftercare of patients, and dissimilarities in the composition of study populations. Smoking and a history of periodontitis have been associated with a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 10/2012; 23 Suppl 6(Suppl 6):67-76. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02541.x · 3.12 Impact Factor
Show more