Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros












Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants ; : 1-22, 2024 Aug 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39172500

RESUMEN

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between risk profile assessments of dental implants that have been in function for at least two-year and peri-implant marginal bone loss during the follow-up period using the Implant Disease Risk Assessment Diagram. Material and Methods: A total of 70 patients and 170 implants who had been functionally loaded for at least two years and who attended follow-up sessions were included in the study. Full-mouth plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level (CAL), and peri-implant modified plaque index, modified bleeding index, PD, keratinized mucosal width (KMW), CAL and GR were recorded. According to the IDRA risk diagram, participants and dental implants were divided into low, moderate, and high-risk groups. Marginal bone level (MBL) was measured on periapical radiographs obtained at functional loading (T0) and at the last follow-up session (T1), and mesial and distal marginal bone level changes (ΔMBL) were calculated as T1-T0. Results: A statistically significant correlation was found between the periodontitis history and periodontitis susceptibility and IDRA classification at the patient-level. Full-mouth GI, PD, and BOP were found to be statistically higher in the high-risk IDRA group. No statistically significant result was found between the mesial and distal ΔMBL between the IDRA risk groups.Conclusions: In this study, IDRA risk level increased especially by periodontitis susceptibility and periodontitis history, but no significant difference was found between risk groups in terms of ΔMBL.

2.
J Dent ; 144: 104935, 2024 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38499282

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The recently introduced Implant Disease Risk Assessment (IDRA) identifies a restoration margin-alveolar bone crest (RM-AC) distance of less than 1.5 mm as a key risk factor for peri­implant disease among eight major risk factors. This study evaluated the impact of the RM-AC distance on marginal bone loss (MBL) through radiographic analysis. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 77 partially edentulous patients (39 females and 38 males, aged 22 to 76 years) with 202 platform-switched conical connection implants, cement-retained, implant-supported fixed restorations, and bone-level implants placed between 2016 and 2021. Dental implants were followed for least 6 to 36 months at follow up functional loading. Study participants were categorized into Group A (RM-AC distance ≤ 1.5 mm, n = 69) and Group B (RM-AC distance > 1.5 mm, n = 133). Twelve patients in Group B and five patients in Group A had no history of periodontal disease. The MBL was measured radiographically from the most coronal point of the implant shoulder to the alveolar bone, and the RM-AC distance was measured from the restoration margin to the alveolar crest. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was used for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: The incidence of MBL in Group A was statistically significant and 3.42 times higher than that in Group B. The rate of MBL in periodontitis Stage 4 was found to be 26.31 times higher than that in periodontitis Stage 2. The incidence of MBL was 6.097 and 5.02 times higher with increasing implant diameter and length, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study conclusively demonstrates that RM-AC distance ≤ 1.5 significantly increases the risk of MBL, particularly in patients with a history of periodontal disease. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study highlights the critical role of maintaining an RM-AC distance greater than 1.5 mm in the prevention of MBL, particularly in patients with a history of periodontal disease. Since implant diameter and length have a significant impact on the risk of MBL, it emphasizes that implant demographics should also be carefully evaluated.


Asunto(s)
Pérdida de Hueso Alveolar , Proceso Alveolar , Implantes Dentales , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Retrospectivos , Adulto , Pérdida de Hueso Alveolar/diagnóstico por imagen , Pérdida de Hueso Alveolar/etiología , Anciano , Estudios Transversales , Implantes Dentales/efectos adversos , Proceso Alveolar/diagnóstico por imagen , Prótesis Dental de Soporte Implantado/efectos adversos , Arcada Parcialmente Edéntula/diagnóstico por imagen , Adulto Joven , Implantación Dental Endoósea/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...