Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb;14(1):24-30.
doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1701162. Epub 2020 Mar 13.

Peri-implantitis and Severity Level

Eser Elemek  1 , Omer Birkan Agrali  2 , Bahar Kuru  3 , Leyla Kuru  2
Affiliations

Peri-implantitis and Severity Level

Eser Elemek et al. Eur J Dent. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: Different diagnostic criteria were used for diagnosis of peri-implant diseases. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore prevalence of peri-implant diseases and subclassify peri-implantitis based on different levels of radiographic and clinical findings.

Materials and methods: Two hundred patients having 655 dental implants were included in this study. In addition to clinical measurements, standard long-cone parallel technique was used to evaluate marginal bone level around implants. Following diagnosis of peri-implant diseases, peri-implantitis was further subclassified using a severity leveling in terms of marginal bone level and probing depth.

Results: Mean age of 200 subjects was 52.8 ± 12.2 years and 63% were females. In total, bleeding on probing was present in 93% and suppuration in 27% of implants. On subject basis, 2.5% were diagnosed as healthy, 28% with peri-implant mucositis (PM), and 69.5% with peri-implantitis, whereas on implant basis, 3.6% were healthy, 36% presented PM, and 60.4% peri-implantitis. Furthermore, when severity leveling was applied, peri-implantitis prevalence changed markedly and ranged from 14.5 to 31.0% at the subject level and from 10.0 to 22.0% at the implant level. Subgingival restoration margins were observed in 70.6% of patients for implants with PM and in 44% patients for implants with peri-implantitis. Most of the implants with peri-implantitis were with platform match (71.5%).

Conclusions: Applying different thresholds to the peri-implantitis definition yielded different prevalence rates ranging from 10 to 31%. As no established diagnostic criteria are being used today, results from clinical studies may not reflect the true disease prevalence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Analysis of radiographic bone loss.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Albrektsson T, Isidor F. London: Quintessence Publishing; 1994. Consensus report of session IV; pp. 365–369.
    1. Zitzmann N U, Berglundh T, Marinello C P, Lindhe J. Experimental peri-implant mucositis in man. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28(06):517–523. - PubMed
    1. Berglundh T, Gislason O, Lekholm U, Sennerby L, Lindhe J. Histopathological observations of human periimplantitis lesions. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31(05):341–347. - PubMed
    1. van Winkelhoff A J, Goené R J, Benschop C, Folmer T. Early colonization of dental implants by putative periodontal pathogens in partially edentulous patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11(06):511–520. - PubMed
    1. Renvert S, Roos-Jansåker A M, Claffey N. Non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a literature review. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35 08:305–315. - PubMed