Journal article
Supportive peri-implant therapy following anti-infective surgical peri-implantitis treatment: 5-year survival and success.
- Heitz-Mayfield LJA International Research Collaborative, Faculty of Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
- Salvi GE School of Dental Medicine, The University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
- Mombelli A School of Dental Medicine, The University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
- Loup PJ School of Dental Medicine, The University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
- Heitz F Perth Periodontal Specialists, Perth, WA, Australia.
- Kruger E International Research Collaborative, Faculty of Science, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia.
- Lang NP Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
- 2016-06-24
Published in:
- Clinical oral implants research. - 2018
maintenance care
peri-implantitis
success
supportive therapy
survival
Anti-Infective Agents
Biofilms
Bone Resorption
Combined Modality Therapy
Dental Implants
Dental Restoration Failure
Humans
Logistic Models
Peri-Implantitis
Prospective Studies
Radiography, Dental
Recurrence
Survival Analysis
English
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra- and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of peri-implant bone loss.
RESULTS
Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria. At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years.
CONCLUSION
Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period.
To evaluate clinical outcomes of supportive peri-implant therapy (SPIT) following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Twenty-four partially dentate patients with 36 dental implants diagnosed with peri-implantitis were treated by an anti-infective surgical protocol followed by regular supportive therapy. SPIT included removal of supra- and submucosal biofilm at the treated implants using titanium or carbon fibre curettes, or ultrasonic devices. In addition, professional prophylaxis (calculus/biofilm removal) at other implants/teeth and oral hygiene reinforcement was provided. Clinical measurements and radiographs were obtained at 1, 3 and 5 years. A successful treatment outcome was defined as implant survival with the absence of peri-implant probing depths (PD) ≥ 5 mm with concomitant bleeding/suppuration and absence of progression of peri-implant bone loss.
RESULTS
Twelve months after treatment, there was 100% survival of the treated implants and 79% of patients (19 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome according to the defined success criteria. At 3 years, 75% of the patients (18 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome, two patients (8%) were lost to follow-up (LTF), while 8% lost an implant, and two patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis. Between 3 and 5 years, an additional two patients were LTF, and an additional two patients each lost one implant. Thus, at 5 years 63% of patients (15 of 24) had a successful treatment outcome. Complete resolution of peri-implantitis, defined as absence of bleeding at all sites, was achieved in 42% of implants (N = 15) at 5 years.
CONCLUSION
Five years following regular supportive therapy, the peri-implant conditions established following peri-implantitis surgery were maintained in the majority of patients and implants. Some patients had recurrence of peri-implantitis and some lost implants over the 5-year period.
- Language
-
- English
- Open access status
- closed
- Identifiers
-
- DOI 10.1111/clr.12910
- PMID 27335316
- Persistent URL
- https://fredi.hepvs.ch/global/documents/60126
Statistics
Document views: 15
File downloads: