Survival analysis of implants after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis based on bone loss severity and surgical technique: a retrospective study

被引:2
|
作者
Hwang, Sooshin [1 ]
Lee, Hee-min [1 ]
Yun, Pil-Young [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Kim, Young-Kyun [1 ]
机构
[1] Seoul Natl Univ, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Sect Dent, Bundang Hosp, 82 Gumi ro,173beon gil, Seongnam 13620, South Korea
[2] Seoul Natl Univ, Sch Dent, Dept Dent, 101 Daehak ro Jongno gu, Seoul 03080, South Korea
[3] Seoul Natl Univ, Dent Res Inst, Sch Dent, 101 Daehak ro Jongno gu, Seoul 03080, South Korea
关键词
Peri-implantitis; Surgical treatment; Bone loss rate; Surgical method; Survival analysis; FOLLOW-UP; CLASSIFICATION; DISEASES; OUTCOMES; THERAPY;
D O I
10.1186/s12903-023-02981-5
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
BackgroundFew trials have compared the results of surgical treatment for peri-implantitis based on severity of peri-implantitis and surgical method. This study investigated the survival rate of implants based on type of surgical method used and initial severity of peri-implantitis. Classification of severity was determined based on bone loss rate relative to fixture length.MethodsMedical records of patients who underwent peri-implantitis surgery from July 2003 to April 2021 were identified. Classification of peri-implantitis was divided into 3 groups (stage 1: bone loss < 25% (of fixture length), stage 2: 25% < bone loss < 50%, stage 3: bone loss > 50%) and performance of resective or regenerative surgery was investigated. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox hazards proportional models were used to analyze the cumulative survival rate of implants. Median survival time, predicted mean survival time, hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.ResultsBased on Kaplan-Meier analysis, 89 patients and 227 implants were included, and total median postoperative survival duration was 8.96 years. Cumulative survival rates for stage 1, 2, and 3 were 70.7%, 48.9%, and 21.3%, respectively. The mean survival time for implants in stage 1, 2, and 3 was 9.95 years, 7.96 years, and 5.67 years, respectively, with statistically significant difference (log-rank p-value < 0.001). HRs for stage 2 and stage 3 were 2.25 and 4.59, respectively, with stage 1 as reference. Significant difference was not found in survival time between resective and regenerative surgery groups in any peri-implantitis stage.ConclusionsThe initial bone loss rate relative to the fixture length significantly correlated with the outcome after peri-implantitis surgery, demonstrating a notable difference in the long-term survival rate. Difference was not found between resective surgery and regenerative surgery in implant survival time. Bone loss rate could be utilized as a reliable diagnostic tool for evaluating prognosis after surgical treatment, regardless of surgical method used.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using a bone substitute with or without a resorbable membrane:: a prospective cohort study
    Roos-Jansaker, Ann-Marie
    Renvert, Helena
    Lindahl, Christel
    Renvert, Stefan
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2007, 34 (07) : 625 - 632
  • [32] Surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitisQuestion: What is the most effective surgical regenerative treatment for peri-implantitis?
    Mark Steven-Howe
    Derek Richards
    Evidence-Based Dentistry, 2017, 18 (3) : 79 - 81
  • [33] Interventions for peri-implantitis and their effects on further bone loss: A retrospective analysis of a registry-based cohort
    Karlsson, Karolina
    Derks, Jan
    Hakansson, Jan
    Wennstrom, Jan L.
    Petzold, Max
    Berglundh, Tord
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2019, 46 (08) : 872 - 879
  • [34] Probing at implants with peri-implantitis and its relation to clinical peri-implant bone loss
    Serino, Giovanni
    Turri, Alberto
    Lang, Niklaus P.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2013, 24 (01) : 91 - 95
  • [35] Change in bone resorption markers in pen-implant sulcus fluid after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis
    Wohlfahrt, J. C.
    Aass, A. M.
    Grandfeldt, F.
    Lyngstadaas, S. P.
    Reseland, J. E.
    BONE, 2012, 50 : S116 - S116
  • [36] Reentry After Combined Surgical Resective and Regenerative Therapy of Advanced Peri-implantitis: A Retrospective Analysis of Five Cases
    Schwarz, Frank
    John, Gordon
    Becker, Juergen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2015, 35 (05) : 647 - 654
  • [37] Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at zirconia implants: a prospective case series
    Schwarz, Frank
    John, Gordon
    Hegewald, Andrea
    Becker, Juergen
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2015, 42 (08) : 783 - 788
  • [38] Implant failure and clinical and radiographic outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A meta-analysis
    Solderer, Alex
    Holtzman, Lucrezia Paterno
    Milinkovic, Lva
    Pitta, Joao
    Malpassi, Chiara
    Wiedemeier, Daniel
    Cordaro, Luca
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2024, 17 (01) : 13 - 42
  • [39] Retrospective cohort study of 4,591 dental implants: Analysis of risk indicators for bone loss and prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis
    French, David
    Grandin, H. Michelle
    Ofec, Ronen
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2019, 90 (07) : 691 - 700
  • [40] Diagnosis of peri-implant status after peri-implantitis surgical treatment: Proposal of a new classification
    Ravida, Andrea
    Galli, Matthew
    Siqueira, Rafael
    Saleh, Muhammad H. A.
    Galindo-Morenzo, Pablo
    Wang, Hom-Lay
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY, 2020, 91 (12) : 1553 - 1561