4.5 Review

The Frequency of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 84, Issue 11, Pages 1586-1598

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2012.120592

Keywords

Dental implants; diagnosis; epidemiology; meta-analysis; peri-implantitis; review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The peri-implant diseases, namely peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, have been extensively studied. However, little is known about the true magnitude of the problem, owing mainly to the lack of consistent and definite diagnostic criteria used to describe the condition. The objective of the present review is to systematically estimate the overall frequency of peri-implant diseases in general and high-risk patients. Methods: The systematic review is prepared according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology statement. Studies were searched in four electronic databases, complemented by manual searching. The quality of the studies was assessed according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, and the data were analyzed using statistical software. Results: Of 504 studies identified, nine studies with 1,497 participants and 6,283 implants were included. The summary estimates for the frequency of peri-implant mucositis were 63.4% of participants and 30.7% of implants, and those of peri-implantitis were 18.8% of participants and 9.6% of implants. A higher frequency of occurrence of peri-implant diseases was recorded for smokers, with a summary estimate of 36.3%. Supportive periodontal therapy seemed to reduce the rate of occurrence of peri-implant diseases. Conclusions: Peri-implant diseases are not uncommon following implant therapy. Long-term maintenance care for high-risk groups is essential to reduce the risk of peri-implantitis. Informed consent for patients receiving implant treatment must include the need for such maintenance therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available