Prevalence of peri-implant diseases. A cross-sectional study based on a private practice environment.

AIM To determine the prevalence of peri-implant diseases in private practice patients enrolled in a periodontal maintenance programme. MATERIAL AND METHODS A cross-sectional study was carried out in patients with dental implants attending the dental clinic to comply with a periodontal maintenance programme between January and June 2010. Implants with at least 1 year of loading time (range: 1-18 years) were included. A patient-based prevalence analysis of peri-implant diseases was carried out. Additionally, implants were classified into the following categories: healthy, clinically stable, mucositis and peri-implantitis. RESULTS A total of 245 patients (964 dental implants) were analysed. Implant and patient-based peri-implantitis prevalences were 9.1% [95% confidence interval (95%CI): 7.5-11.1%] and 16.3% [95%CI: 12.2-21.5%] respectively. Mucositis affected 21.6% [95%CI: 19.1-24.5%] of the studied implants and 38.8% [95%CI: 33.3-45.4%] of the patients. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of peri-implantitis in private practice patients enrolled in a periodontal maintenance programme was estimated to be between 12% and 22%. Almost 40% of the patients had mucositis. These prevalences are similar to those published in University environment samples.

[1]  F. Costa,et al.  Prevalence and risk variables for peri-implant disease in Brazilian subjects. , 2006, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  Nicola U Zitzmann,et al.  Definition and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[3]  L. Heitz‐Mayfield.  Peri-implant diseases: diagnosis and risk indicators. , 2008, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[4]  Stefan Renvert,et al.  Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: presence of peri-implant lesions. , 2006, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  P. Eickholz,et al.  Prevalence of periimplant disease in partially edentulous patients: a practice-based cross-sectional study. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[7]  J. Radford.  Peri-implantitis in partially edentulous patients: association with inadequate plaque control , 2009, BDJ.

[8]  A. Scheie,et al.  Prevalence of peri-implantitis related to severity of the disease with different degrees of bone loss. , 2010, Journal of periodontology.

[9]  K. Gröndahl,et al.  Radiographic analyses of "advanced" marginal bone loss around Brånemark dental implants. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[10]  Björn Klinge,et al.  A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. , 2002, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[11]  A. Mombelli,et al.  The characteristics of biofilms in peri-implant disease. , 2011, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[12]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, Epidemiology.

[13]  N. Lang,et al.  The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. , 1987, Oral microbiology and immunology.

[14]  S. Pocock,et al.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.