Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2015-11-17, 15:11:47 | version 1.38.0
Independent sample t-tests or nonparametric Mann–Whitney U tests were performed to check for any statistically significant difference in each continuous variable between the two groupsofpatients(healthyvs.periimplantitis). Chi-squared tests or Fisher exact tests were usedto assesswhethera statisticallysignificant change in proportions occurred in categorical variables between the two groups of patients in thesamepopulation. All the analyses were computed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (Version 20.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., U.S.). A p-value of ≤ 0.05 wasconsideredstatisticallysignificant. Results At the end of the study, the total population consisted of 83 subjects (44 females, 39 males; mean age: 59.5 ± 11.3 years). Twenty- fourfemales and 19 males were reported in the group with periimplantitis, and 20 females and 20maleswerereportedinthehealthypatients. Seven patients belongingtothe periimplantitis group and ten to the healthy group refused to undergo the microbiological analysis and for this reason were excluded from the studied sample. The study evaluated 103 dental implants af- fected by periimplantitis and 197 healthy im- plants (mean time of loading: 5.31 ± 2.6 years). Clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. In Table 2, all of the differences between the two groups of patients are expressed. Astatisticallysignificantdifference(p< 0.001) between the two groups (Fig. 1) was observed in the total number of implants assessed per patient, with a higher number in the healthy subjects (4.7 ± 1.8) compared with patients with periimplantitis (2.4 ± 2.0). For the other evaluated variables, no statistically significant difference was detected (p > 0.05; Table 2). EBVwaspresentin12patients(Fig.2)inthe healthy group (28.6%) and in 16 patients in the periimplantitis group (37.2%). Of the implants affected by periimplantitis, 28.3% were posi- tive for EBV, as were 21.9% of the healthy im- plants (Table 2). However, the differences be- tween the two groups were not statistically significant. The highest and the median values recorded for EBV were higher among the healthysubjectsinboththeinternalandtheex- ternal implant sites. Figures 3 and 4 show the distribution of EBV in the internal and external implant sites with lower contamination by EBV in the internal implant connections with re- spect to the gingival sulci. Volume 1 | Issue 1/2015 37Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Epste i n–B arr vi ru s and pe r i i mplanti ti s Fig. 1 Difference in the number of implants assessed between healthy patients and patients with periimplantitis. Fig. 2 Subjects with EBV-positive implants in the two groups. Fig. 1 Fig. 2