4.6 Article

Clinical research on peri-implant diseases: consensus report of Working Group 4

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 202-206

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01837.x

关键词

incidence; intervention; peri-implant diseases; peri-implant health; peri-implant mucositis; peri-implantitis; prevalence; prevention; risk factors

资金

  1. European Federation of Periodontology
  2. Astra, Nobel Biocare and Straumann

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Two systematic reviews have evaluated the quality of research and reporting of observational studies investigating the prevalence of, the incidence of and the risk factors for peri-implant diseases and of experimental clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of preventive and therapeutic interventions. Materials and Methods: For the improvement of the quality of reporting for both observational and experimental studies, the STROBE and the Modified CONSORT recommendations were encouraged. Results: To improve the quality of research in peri-implant diseases, the following were recommended: the use of unequivocal case definitions; the expression of outcomes at the subject rather than the implant level; the implementation of study validation tools; the reporting of potential sources of bias; and the use of appropriate statistical methods. Conclusions: In observational studies, case definitions for peri-implantitis were agreed. For risk factor determination, the progressive use of cross-sectional and case-control studies (univariate analyses), to prospective cohorts (multilevel modelling for confounding), and ultimately to intervention studies were recommended. For preventive and interventional studies of peri-implant disease management, parallel arm RCTs of at least 6-months were encouraged. For studies of nonsurgical and surgical management of peri-implantitis, the use of a composite therapeutic end point was advocated. The development of standard control therapies was deemed essential.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据