Loading…

Frequency of peri‐implant diseases and associated factors

Objective To evaluate the frequency of peri‐implant diseases and factors associated with its occurrence. Material and methods One hundred and fifty‐five patients with dental implants were evaluated in this cross‐sectional study. Dental implants were clinically and radiographically evaluated to diagn...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2017-10, Vol.28 (10), p.1211-1217
Main Authors: Gurgel, Bruno César de Vasconcelos, Montenegro, Sheyla Christine Lira, Dantas, Poliana Medeiros Cunha, Pascoal, Ana Luísa de Barros, Lima, Kenio Costa, Calderon, Patrícia dos Santos
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To evaluate the frequency of peri‐implant diseases and factors associated with its occurrence. Material and methods One hundred and fifty‐five patients with dental implants were evaluated in this cross‐sectional study. Dental implants were clinically and radiographically evaluated to diagnose their peri‐implant condition, according to Mombelli (Proceedings of the 3rd European Workshop on Periodontology, 1999, Quintessence, London). Associations between peri‐implant diseases and independent variables (socioeconomic, demographic and periodontal characteristics) were evaluated through bivariate analysis with chi‐squared and Fisher's exact tests, as well as by multiple logistic regression. The significance level was set at 5%. Results The frequencies of the peri‐implant diseases, mucositis and peri‐implantitis, in individuals were 54% and 28% (CI, 95%), respectively. The sample was almost exclusively of patients with untreated periodontal disease (93%). Bivariate analysis showed that these peri‐implant diseases were associated with male patients (prevalence ratio [PR], 3.38), medication use (PR, 2.94), systemic diseases (PR, 2.25), number of implants (PR, 2.53), visible plaque index (PR, 2.49) and gingival index (PR, 2.70). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that medication use (prevalence ratio adjusted [PRadj], 1.23; 95% CI: 1.04–1.46; P = 0.017), having two or more implants (PRadj, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.02–1.46; P = 0.029) and gingival bleeding index > 10% (PRadj, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.03–1.44; P = 0.022) were associated with the presence of peri‐implant disease. Conclusion Peri‐implant diseases were diagnosed in 54% of patients; gingival index of greater than 10%, having more than two implants and use of medication were associated with the frequency of peri‐implant disease.
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.12944