Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant disease prevalence is associated with a multifactorial etiology and distinct clinical characteristics of inflammation. METHODS: The present study aimed to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, identify related risk indicators, and associate specific clinical characteristics to peri-implant biological complications in the medium term. Peri-implant diseases were classified according to established case criteria. Patients' data, implant and/or prosthetic features, and maintenance records were collected. Clinical characteristics such as bleeding on probing (BOP), suppuration (SUPP), keratinized mucosa (KM), probing depth (PD), marginal recession (MR), and modified plaque index (mPI) were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with 266 implants with a mean functional duration of 30.26 months were evaluated. Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis prevalence totaled to 49.5% and 15.15% (patient level), respectively. Peri-implant mucositis was associated with osteoporosis (odds ratio OR 6.09), age (OR 0.97), diabetes mellitus (OR 3.09), cemented-retained prosthesis (OR 3.81), and partial prosthesis (OR 2.21). Peri-implantitis was associated with osteoporosis (OR 7.74) and periodontitis (OR 2.74), cemented prosthesis (OR 10.12), partial and full arch prostheses (OR 12.35 and 19.86), implant diameter (OR 3.64), abutment transmucosal height (OR 3.39), and hygiene difficulty (OR 3.14). Furthermore, mPI score 3 (OR 3.27) and PD scores (OR 1.64) were associated with peri-implant mucositis, while mPI score 3 (OR 16.42), KM (OR 1.53), PD (OR 1.81), MR (OR 2.61), and the relationship between KM and PD (OR 0.63) were associated with peri-implantitis. CONCLUSION: In the medium term, peri-implant diseases were correlated with factors inherent to the patient's conditions, presurgical treatment plan, and hygiene maintenance care. The knowledge of the mentioned factors and featured clinical characteristics can be crucial for disease prevention and establishment of a superior implant therapy prognosis.
Apaza‐Bedoya et al. (Tue,) studied this question.