hkr.sePublications
Planned maintenance
A system upgrade is planned for 24/9-2024, at 12:00-14:00. During this time DiVA will be unavailable.
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Two‐ and ten‐year follow‐up of patients responding and non‐responding to the surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: A retrospective evaluation
Kristianstad University, Faculty of Health Science, Research environment Oral Health - Public Health - Quality of Life (OHAL). Kristianstad University, Faculty of Health Science, Department of Oral Health.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0992-2362
Region Västra Götaland.
Region Västra Götaland.
Japan.
2021 (English)In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, ISSN 0905-7161, E-ISSN 1600-0501, Vol. 32, no 4, p. 410-421Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: To report a follow-upof patients following the surgical anti-infective treatment of peri-implantitis and to identify possible risk indicators for the progression of disease during supportive peri-implant therapy. Material and Methods: Following peri-implant surgery, 41 patients (213 implants) were enrolled in a supportive peri-implant therapy. At the 2-year follow-up, two groups of patients were identified, with or without residual peri-implant pockets (responding and non-responding group). Eighteen patients (85 implants) of the non-responding group were followed for further 8 years. Results: At the 2-year examination, 73 of the 117 treated implants (62.4%) presented healthy peri-implant condition, while 44 (37.6%) presented persisting peri-implantitis associated with substantial bone loss before treatment. The 10-year examination of the non-responding group revealed that 1) 84% of the implants that regained health following surgery remained healthy during the entire observation period; 2) 66% of the implants with residual pockets following surgery maintained stable peri-implant condition; and 3) 29% of all treated implants showed disease progression, and 11 of those were extracted. Presence of pockets at 3–4 sites of the implants was identified as risk indicator for progression of peri-implantitis. Conclusion: The peri-implant health achieved following therapy was maintained formost of the implants during the follow-up. Residual pockets were a frequent finding at implants with substantial bone loss before treatment. Presence of pockets around the entire circumference of the implants resulted as a risk indicator for further disease progression. The probability of progression of peri-implant disease increased with increased observation time.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2021. Vol. 32, no 4, p. 410-421
Keywords [en]
Dental implants, follow-up study, Peri-implantitis/surgery, risk factors, treatment outcome
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:hkr:diva-21797DOI: 10.1111/clr.13711ISI: 000614500300001PubMedID: 33449388OAI: oai:DiVA.org:hkr-21797DiVA, id: diva2:1543161
Available from: 2021-04-09 Created: 2021-04-09 Last updated: 2021-04-30Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedFulltext

Authority records

Renvert, Stefan

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Renvert, Stefan
By organisation
Research environment Oral Health - Public Health - Quality of Life (OHAL)Department of Oral Health
In the same journal
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 193 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf