Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 1, 2017

G u i d e d b o n e r e g e n e r a t i o n i n p e r i i m p l a n t i t i s t h e r a p y Fig. 1 Fig. 1 Defect classes and treatment protocol according to Schwarz et al.17, 18 Ia (buccal vertical bone dehiscence), Ib (buccal dehiscence and semicircular bone defect to the middle of the implant body), Ic (buccal dehiscence, circular bone defect, maintained lingual solid bone), Id (buccal and lingual dehiscence defects), Ie (circular bone resorption, buccal and oral compacta maintained), II (supra-alveolar circumferential bone loss). A n a l y s i s Both hopeless implants extracted before the periimplantitis therapy and implants treated by a diferent dentist with incomplete data were not included in our evaluation. Data for the clin- ical evaluation were retrieved retrospectively from the patient files in our practice and includ- ed plaque index, full-mouth bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing pocket depth (PPD). PPD was measured from the mucosal margin to the bot- tom of the probeable pocket mesially, distally, orally and vestibularly at the start of the periim- plantitis therapy and during recall visits in our practice at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 49 to 56 months. In order to evaluate possible risk factors for periimplantitis, signs of prosthetic deficien- cies at the start of the therapy were analyzed, as was history of periimplantitis. Additionally, patient files were analyzed to identify smoking, bisphosphonate intake and diabetic patients at the time of implantation. In order to analyze the prevalence of periim- plantitis per indication, implants were allocated to one of the following indication classes as de- fined at the consensus conference of the BDIZ EDI, DGI, DGMKG, DGZI and BDO (national German dental associations) on Oct. 8, 2014: – Ia: single-tooth replacement in the anterior area; In an additional subanalysis, implants inserted between 1993 and 2014 were evaluated for pri- mary indication classes and the rate of explan- tations. S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s The following exploratory tests were performed: – To test the null hypothesis of no association between indication class and the need for im- plant therapy, the approximate chi-squared test for association was used. The significance level was set at 5%. – All pairs of indication classes were tested against each other using the same chi-squared tests. In order to avoid inflation of Type I error due to multiple testing, all p-values were multi plied by the number of such comparisons (15; Bonferroni correction). – Each indication class was compared to all oth- er indication classes pooled using the chi- squared tests already mentioned above. Since there were six comparisons, p-values were multiplied by six (Bonferroni correction) to account for multiple testing. Results – Ib: single-tooth replacement in the posterior area; – IIa: interdental space; – IIb: free-end situation; – IIc: greatly reduced residual dentition; and – III: edentulous jaw. Between 1993 and 2014, a total of 22,724 im- plants were inserted in 9,429 patients in our practice and patients were then referred back to their prosthodontists or treating dentists for prostheses. During the observation period of our evaluation (2009–2015), 516 of those patients 34 Volume 3 | Issue 1/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation

Pages Overview