| Autor: |
Sung, Cheng‐En, Chung, Kwok‐Hung, Lin, Fu‐Gong, Huang, Ren‐Yeong, Cheng, Wan‐Chien, Chen, Wei‐Liang |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Clinical Oral Implants Research; Oct2024, Vol. 35 Issue 10, p1273-1285, 13p |
| Abstrakt: |
Objectives: To retrospectively assess the periodontal conditions of teeth adjacent to and contralateral to implants presenting with or without peri‐implantitis, following non‐surgical periodontal and peri‐implant mechanical therapy. Materials and Methods: One hundred and one patients with existing dental implants and chronic periodontitis, who underwent non‐surgical periodontal and peri‐implant mechanical therapy, were included. The periodontal clinical probing depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at six sites around the adjacent (Adj‐) teeth and the contralateral (CL‐) teeth relative to the implant. The potential factors influencing the periodontal conditions of 316 teeth were analyzed by multivariate linear regression models with generalized estimating equation methods and α =.05. Results: The PPD of Adj‐teeth was significantly different from that of CL‐teeth before and after non‐surgical therapy when the implant was diagnosed with peri‐implantitis (PI) (p <.05). The PPD of teeth was shown to be affected by neighboring implants diagnosed with peri‐implantitis (β =.825 mm, p <.001), teeth adjacent to implants (β =.245 mm, p =.004), a molar tooth type (β =.435 mm, p =.019), and non‐surgical therapy (β = −.522 mm, p <.001). Conclusions: Relatively compromised periodontal conditions at Adj‐teeth after non‐surgical PI therapy were detected. Therefore, clinicians should be aware that non‐surgical therapy may be less successful at teeth adjacent to implants with PI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text