Incidence of Surgery Related to Problems with Peri‐Implantitis: A Retrospective Study on Patients Followed Up between 2003 and 2010 at One Specialist Clinic

Publisher： John Wiley & Sons Inc

E-ISSN： 1708-8208|17|2|209-220

ISSN： 1523-0899

Source： CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, Vol.17, Iss.2, 2015-04, pp. : 209-220

Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.

Previous Menu Next

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundLittle knowledge is available on incidence of patients treated for peri‐implantitis problems in routine follow‐up protocols.PurposeThe aim was to report the incidence, and clinical and radiographic characteristics related to routine follow‐up patients who are surgically treated for peri‐implantitis problems during 8 years of inclusion.Materials and MethodsPatients with a history of peri‐implantitis surgery were identified from patients examined on routine basis at one clinic (Brånemark clinic) between January 2003 and December 2010. Data on included patients were retrospectively retrieved and reported from dental records and radiographs.ResultsOn an average, 1,294 patients per year (SD 96) were followed up during inclusion period. Altogether, 134 patients had surgery related to peri‐implantitis problems, corresponding to an average of 1.2% of followed‐up patients per year. No prosthesis was completely lost, but altogether, 37 implants (6% of included implants) were removed in 34 patients (25%) during these surgical interventions. Peri‐implantitis surgery was observed more often in the edentulous upper jaw (p < .05), and there was a tendency that surgery increased by time of follow‐up. No significant differences were found between patients provided with machined or medium–rough implant surfaces.ConclusionsIncidence of peri‐implantitis surgery was on an average 1.2% of followed‐up patients per year during an 8 years period of inclusion. As no data were available on patient compliance, it could be assumed that the result may underscore the clinical need. Significantly, more edentulous upper jaws were included compared with other treated jaw situations. Data also indicated that the need for surgery may increase by time of follow‐up, but no significant differences were observed between patients provided with machined and medium–rough implant surfaces.