Evaluation of peri-implant condition in periodontally compromised patients

Guilherme Da Rocha Scalzer Lopes; Alfredo Carlos Rodrigues Feitosa; Fabrícia Ferreira Suaid; Jefferson David Melo De Matos; John Eversong Lucena De Vasconcelos; Sergio Lins De Azevedo Vaz; Valdir Cabral Andrade; Renato Sussumu Nishioka; Selva Maria Gonçalves Guerra

doi:10.4103/jips.jips_197_19

Evaluation of peri-implant condition in periodontally compromised patients

J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2019 Oct-Dec;19(4):283-289. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_197_19. Epub 2019 Oct 10.

Authors

Guilherme Da Rocha Scalzer Lopes¹, Alfredo Carlos Rodrigues Feitosa², Fabrícia Ferreira Suaid², Jefferson David Melo De Matos¹, John Eversong Lucena De Vasconcelos³, Sergio Lins De Azevedo Vaz⁴, Valdir Cabral Andrade⁵, Renato Sussumu Nishioka¹, Selva Maria Gonçalves Guerra⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, SP, Brazil.
² Department of Periodontics, Federal University of Espiírito Santo (Ufes), Vitória, ES, Brazil.
³ Department of Dentistry, Caririense Postgraduate Center, Juazeiro do Norte, CE, Brazil.
⁴ Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Espírito Santo (Ufes), Vitória, ES, Brazil.
⁵ Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil.

Abstract

Aims: The aim of the study is to evaluate the profile of peri-implant tissues in periodontally compromised patients.

Settings and design: In vivo - cross sectional study design.

Materials and methods: Fifty-eight implants were evaluated, clinically and radiographically, installed in seven individuals treated by the same team of professionals, during the years 1997 and 2005 in a private dental clinic in Vitória, ES, Brazil; that time of data collection, all implants were at least 10 years of functional loading. The variables related to the dental implants evaluated were: visible Plaque Index, Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and bone level, to relate them to the classification of dental implants.

Statistical analysis used: The Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test were adopted.

Results: The total of 58 implants were classified: 11 (18.9%) as healthy and 12 (20.7%) as clinically stable. The other 35 implants (60.4%) had some type of peri-implant inflammation, 20 of them (34.5%) were diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and 15 (25.9%) with peri-implantitis. Among the variables studied, the results showed statistically significant differences for implant location (P = 0.001) and GBI (P = 0.03). Most of the maxillary implants (85.7%) were classified for some type of peri-implant disease. For the implants which resulted in Score 1 for GBI, most of them (75.0%) were also classified for some type of peri-implant disease.

Conclusions: Dental implants placed in periodontally compromised patients may have high long-term survival rates. However, most implants were classified with some type of peri-implant inflammation.

Keywords: Implants; mucositis; peri-implantitis; periodontal diseases; risk factors.