{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Retrospective assessment of patients' risk for peri-implant diseases using the implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool: A cohort study.
{Author}: de Medeiros Dantas JL;Freire GCB;Dos Santos Calderon P;Duarte PM;de Vasconcelos Gurgel BC;
{Journal}: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Aug 7
{Factor}: 4.259
{DOI}: 10.1111/cid.13371
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>The implant disease risk assessment (IDRA) tool was designed to assess an individual's risk of developing peri-implant diseases by evaluating and integrating multiple risk factors. This study aimed to evaluate the IDRA tool to determine the risk of developing peri-implant disease in patients rehabilitated with dental implants.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>A retrospective observational cross-sectional study was conducted, collecting data from 92 patients with 92 selected dental implants. Data included the history of periodontitis, sites with bleeding on probing (BoP), teeth and/or implants with probing depths (PDs) ≥ 5 mm, alveolar bone loss relative to the patient's age, susceptibility to periodontitis, the frequency of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), the distance from the restorative margin (RM) of the implant-supported prosthesis to the marginal bone crest (MBC), and factors related to the prosthesis itself. Additionally, the validated instrument periodontal risk assessment (PRA) was employed for comparison. Statistical analyses utilized Chi-square, Mann-Whitney, and ROC curve.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Outcomes indicated that 62 implants (67.4%) were classified as high-risk. Among the IDRA parameters, history of periodontitis was the primary factor contributing to an increased risk (p < 0.001). IDRA revealed high sensitivity (100%) and low specificity (63%) (AUC = 0.685; 95% CI: 0.554-0.816; p = 0.047), and there was a low agreement between the IDRA and PRA tools (Kappa = 0.123; p = 0.014). The peri-implant disease developed in 16 implants with 5.44 (±2.50) years of follow-up, however, no significant association was observed between the high- and low-medium risk groups and the occurrence of peri-implant diseases.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Most of the evaluated implants presented high IDRA risk. The IDRA tool exhibited high sensitivity and low specificity; no significant association was observed between the risk profile and the development of peri-implant diseases.