Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The association of the periodontium with the fixed prosthesis is the basis of prosthetic rehabilitation. This prospective case series aimed to evaluate periodontal health through the relation between periodontal/peri-implant disease progression and the use of fixed partial dentures (FPDs).
METHODS: Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) on either teeth or implants were evaluated at up to 25-year follow-up and compared with the baseline. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier test (p⟨0.05).
RESULTS: The prospective evaluation showed that the patients maintained adequate periodontal health. Failure (severe periodontal stages) occurred in 12.5% of patients. The survival rate for 107 teeth/implants was 80.48%. The comparisons for clinical parameters revealed no statistically significant difference (p⟩ 0.05). At T1, the measurements for anterior and posterior regions, respectively, were PD =2.7mm and 3.1mm; CAL= 3.3mm and 3.6mm; GI=0.5 (both regions); and PI=0.79 and 0.62. Periodontal/peri-implant disease progression did not relate to the use of prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more frequent follow-up appointments and lower GI and PI showed periodontal health for longer periods. Patients with different oral hygiene levels present different periodontal disease progression. Periodic hygiene control and motivation are vital factors for extensive oral rehabilitation success.
METHODS: Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) on either teeth or implants were evaluated at up to 25-year follow-up and compared with the baseline. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier test (p⟨0.05).
RESULTS: The prospective evaluation showed that the patients maintained adequate periodontal health. Failure (severe periodontal stages) occurred in 12.5% of patients. The survival rate for 107 teeth/implants was 80.48%. The comparisons for clinical parameters revealed no statistically significant difference (p⟩ 0.05). At T1, the measurements for anterior and posterior regions, respectively, were PD =2.7mm and 3.1mm; CAL= 3.3mm and 3.6mm; GI=0.5 (both regions); and PI=0.79 and 0.62. Periodontal/peri-implant disease progression did not relate to the use of prostheses.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with more frequent follow-up appointments and lower GI and PI showed periodontal health for longer periods. Patients with different oral hygiene levels present different periodontal disease progression. Periodic hygiene control and motivation are vital factors for extensive oral rehabilitation success.
摘要：
背景：牙周组织与固定假体的结合是假体修复的基础。此前瞻性病例系列旨在通过牙周/种植体周围疾病进展与使用固定局部义齿（FPD）之间的关系来评估牙周健康。
方法：探测深度(PD)，临床依恋水平(CAL)，牙龈指数（GI），在长达25年的随访中评估牙齿或植入物的菌斑指数（PI），并与基线进行比较。使用Kaplan-Meier检验进行统计学分析(p^0.05)。
结果：前瞻性评估显示患者保持了足够的牙周健康。12.5％的患者发生失败（严重的牙周阶段）。107颗牙齿/种植体的存活率为80.48％。临床参数的比较显示没有统计学上的显著差异(p^0.05)。在T1，前部和后部区域的测量，分别,PD=2.7mm和3.1mm;CAL=3.3mm和3.6mm;GI=0.5(两个区域);PI=0.79和0.62。牙周/种植体周围疾病的进展与假体的使用无关。
结论：随访次数较多、GI和PI较低的患者在较长的时间内表现出牙周健康。口腔卫生水平不同的患者呈现不同的牙周病进展。定期的卫生控制和动机是口腔康复成功的重要因素。
方法：探测深度(PD)，临床依恋水平(CAL)，牙龈指数（GI），在长达25年的随访中评估牙齿或植入物的菌斑指数（PI），并与基线进行比较。使用Kaplan-Meier检验进行统计学分析(p^0.05)。
结果：前瞻性评估显示患者保持了足够的牙周健康。12.5％的患者发生失败（严重的牙周阶段）。107颗牙齿/种植体的存活率为80.48％。临床参数的比较显示没有统计学上的显著差异(p^0.05)。在T1，前部和后部区域的测量，分别,PD=2.7mm和3.1mm;CAL=3.3mm和3.6mm;GI=0.5(两个区域);PI=0.79和0.62。牙周/种植体周围疾病的进展与假体的使用无关。
结论：随访次数较多、GI和PI较低的患者在较长的时间内表现出牙周健康。口腔卫生水平不同的患者呈现不同的牙周病进展。定期的卫生控制和动机是口腔康复成功的重要因素。
