Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the risk of peri-implantitis (PI) onset among different implant systems and evaluate the severity of the disease from a population of patients treated in a university clinic. Furthermore, this study intends to thoroughly examine the surface properties of the implant systems that have been identified and investigated.
METHODS: Data from a total of six hundred and 14 patients were extracted from the Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo. Subject- and implant-based variables were collected, including the type of implant, date of implant installation, medical records, recall appointments up to 2022, periodontal measurements, information on diabetes, smoking status, sex, and age. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of PI, defined as the occurrence of bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, and bone loss (BL). Data were analyzed using multivariate linear and logistic regression. Scanning electron microscopy, light laser profilometer, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were utilized for surface and chemical analyses.
RESULTS: Among the patients evaluated, 6.8% were diagnosed with PI. A comparison was made between two different implant systems: Dentsply Sirona, OsseospeedTM and Straumann SLActive, with mean follow-up times of 3.84 years (SE: 0.15) and 3.34 years (SE: 0.15), respectively. The surfaces have different topographies and surface chemistry. However, no significant association was found between PI and implant surface/system, including no difference in the onset or severity of the disease. Nonetheless, plaque control was associated with an increased risk of developing PI, along with the gender of the patient. Furthermore, patients suffering from PI exhibited increased BL in the anterior region.
CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed among the evaluated implant systems, although the surfaces have different topography and chemistry. Factors that affected the risk of developing PI were plaque index and male gender. The severity of BL in patients with PI was more pronounced in the anterior region. Consequently, our findings show that success in implantology is less contingent on selecting implant systems and more on a better understanding of patient-specific risk factors, as well as on implementing biomaterials that can more effectively debride dental implants.
METHODS: Data from a total of six hundred and 14 patients were extracted from the Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Dental Faculty, University of Oslo. Subject- and implant-based variables were collected, including the type of implant, date of implant installation, medical records, recall appointments up to 2022, periodontal measurements, information on diabetes, smoking status, sex, and age. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of PI, defined as the occurrence of bleeding on probing (BoP), peri-implant probing depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm, and bone loss (BL). Data were analyzed using multivariate linear and logistic regression. Scanning electron microscopy, light laser profilometer, and X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were utilized for surface and chemical analyses.
RESULTS: Among the patients evaluated, 6.8% were diagnosed with PI. A comparison was made between two different implant systems: Dentsply Sirona, OsseospeedTM and Straumann SLActive, with mean follow-up times of 3.84 years (SE: 0.15) and 3.34 years (SE: 0.15), respectively. The surfaces have different topographies and surface chemistry. However, no significant association was found between PI and implant surface/system, including no difference in the onset or severity of the disease. Nonetheless, plaque control was associated with an increased risk of developing PI, along with the gender of the patient. Furthermore, patients suffering from PI exhibited increased BL in the anterior region.
CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed among the evaluated implant systems, although the surfaces have different topography and chemistry. Factors that affected the risk of developing PI were plaque index and male gender. The severity of BL in patients with PI was more pronounced in the anterior region. Consequently, our findings show that success in implantology is less contingent on selecting implant systems and more on a better understanding of patient-specific risk factors, as well as on implementing biomaterials that can more effectively debride dental implants.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在评估不同植入系统发生种植体周围炎（PI）的风险，并评估在大学诊所接受治疗的患者人群的疾病严重程度。此外，这项研究旨在彻底检查已确定和调查的植入物系统的表面特性。
方法：从临床牙科研究所提取了总共6114名患者的数据，牙科学院，奥斯陆大学。收集了基于主题和植入物的变量，包括植入物的类型，植入物安装日期,医疗记录,召回到2022年的预约，牙周测量，关于糖尿病的信息，吸烟状况,性别,和年龄。感兴趣的结果是PI的诊断，定义为探查出血（BoP）的发生，种植体周围探测深度(PD)≥5mm,骨丢失（BL）。使用多元线性和逻辑回归分析数据。扫描电子显微镜，光激光轮廓仪，和X射线光电子能谱用于表面和化学分析。
结果：在评估的患者中，6.8%被诊断为PI。在两种不同的植入物系统之间进行了比较：DentsplySirona，OsseoseedTM和StraumannSLActive,平均随访时间为3.84年(SE:0.15)和3.34年(SE:0.15)，分别。表面具有不同的形貌和表面化学。然而,PI和植入物表面/系统之间没有发现显著关联，包括疾病的发作或严重程度没有差异。尽管如此，斑块控制与发展PI的风险增加相关，以及患者的性别。此外，患有PI的患者在前部区域表现出增加的BL。
结论：在评估的植入物系统之间没有观察到差异，尽管表面具有不同的形貌和化学性质。影响发展PI风险的因素是菌斑指数和男性。PI患者的BL严重程度在前部区域更为明显。因此,我们的研究结果表明，成功的植入与选择植入系统无关，而更多地取决于对患者特定风险因素的更好理解。以及实施可以更有效地清除牙科植入物的生物材料。
方法：从临床牙科研究所提取了总共6114名患者的数据，牙科学院，奥斯陆大学。收集了基于主题和植入物的变量，包括植入物的类型，植入物安装日期,医疗记录,召回到2022年的预约，牙周测量，关于糖尿病的信息，吸烟状况,性别,和年龄。感兴趣的结果是PI的诊断，定义为探查出血（BoP）的发生，种植体周围探测深度(PD)≥5mm,骨丢失（BL）。使用多元线性和逻辑回归分析数据。扫描电子显微镜，光激光轮廓仪，和X射线光电子能谱用于表面和化学分析。
结果：在评估的患者中，6.8%被诊断为PI。在两种不同的植入物系统之间进行了比较：DentsplySirona，OsseoseedTM和StraumannSLActive,平均随访时间为3.84年(SE:0.15)和3.34年(SE:0.15)，分别。表面具有不同的形貌和表面化学。然而,PI和植入物表面/系统之间没有发现显著关联，包括疾病的发作或严重程度没有差异。尽管如此，斑块控制与发展PI的风险增加相关，以及患者的性别。此外，患有PI的患者在前部区域表现出增加的BL。
结论：在评估的植入物系统之间没有观察到差异，尽管表面具有不同的形貌和化学性质。影响发展PI风险的因素是菌斑指数和男性。PI患者的BL严重程度在前部区域更为明显。因此,我们的研究结果表明，成功的植入与选择植入系统无关，而更多地取决于对患者特定风险因素的更好理解。以及实施可以更有效地清除牙科植入物的生物材料。
