> Details

Sonnenschein, Sarah K.; Kohnen, Rebecca; Ciardo, Antonio; Ziegler, Philipp; Seide, Svenja; Kim, Ti‐Sun

Changes of clinical parameters at implants: A retrospective comparison of implants versus natural teeth over 5 years of supportive periodontal therapy

Reference
management

Bookmarks

Remove from
bookmarks

Share this on Whatsapp

Close

Bookmarks



You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
  • Media type: E-Article
  • Title: Changes of clinical parameters at implants: A retrospective comparison of implants versus natural teeth over 5 years of supportive periodontal therapy
  • Contributor: Sonnenschein, Sarah K.; Kohnen, Rebecca; Ciardo, Antonio; Ziegler, Philipp; Seide, Svenja; Kim, Ti‐Sun
  • imprint: Wiley, 2020
  • Published in: Clinical Oral Implants Research
  • Language: English
  • DOI: 10.1111/clr.13601
  • ISSN: 1600-0501; 0905-7161
  • Keywords: Oral Surgery
  • Origination:
  • Footnote:
  • Description: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>To compare clinical parameters of implants versus natural teeth over a period of 5 years during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Material and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 421 SPT patients were screened for implants (I) and corresponding control teeth (C). Data (patient level [<jats:sub>P</jats:sub>]: sex, age, smoking status, systemic diseases, adherence, oral hygiene indices, mean probing depth [PD]<jats:sub>P</jats:sub>, bleeding on probing [BOP]<jats:sub>P</jats:sub>, periodontal risk profile; implant/control tooth level [<jats:sub>I/C</jats:sub>]: PD<jats:sub>I/C</jats:sub>, BOP<jats:sub>I/C</jats:sub>; site level at implants [<jats:sub>SITE</jats:sub>]: position, dental arch, aspect, BOP<jats:sub>SITE</jats:sub>) were assessed at the first SPT session where the implant was probed (T1) and 5 years later (T2). The influence of patient and implant/control‐related factors on PD<jats:sub>I/C</jats:sub>/BOP<jats:sub>I/C</jats:sub> was tested (linear mixed model) as well as the influence of site‐specific factors on the PD<jats:sub>SITE</jats:sub> change (multilevel regression).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>A total of 70 patients (151 implants) were included. Mean PD<jats:sub>I</jats:sub> was 2.75 ± 0.85 mm (T1) and 2.87 ± 0.79 mm (T2). Mean PD<jats:sub>C</jats:sub> was 2.42 ± 0.66 mm (T1) and 2.49 ± 0.71 mm (T2). BOP<jats:sub>I</jats:sub> increased from 8.62 ± 15.01% (T1) to 24.06 ± 26.79% (T2) and BOP<jats:sub>C</jats:sub> from 9.97 ± 17.78% (T1) to 15.52 ± 22.69% (T2). The differences between implants and controls were significant for BOP (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .0032). At T2, BOP<jats:sub>I/C</jats:sub> was associated with periodontal risk (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .0351). The site‐specific analysis revealed an association of BOP<jats:sub>SITE</jats:sub> at T1 with the progression of PD<jats:sub>SITE</jats:sub> (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .0058).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Probing depths of implants and controls seem to change similarly during SPT but retention of inflammation‐free conditions at implants appears to be more difficult compared to natural teeth. Patients with a high‐risk profile appear to have an increased susceptibility for BOP around implants, and BOP at implants seems to be a predictor for further PD increase.</jats:p></jats:sec>