Page 55 - Peri-implant health: the effect of implant design and surgical procedure on bone and soft tissue stability
P. 55

                                HOW DO PERI-IMPLANT BIOLOGIC PARAMETERS CORRESPOND WITH IMPLANT SURVIVAL AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS? A CRITICAL REVIEW
1 mm. Their material consisted of IMZ and TPS implants from the first generation, known to be prone to bone loss over time. Meyle and colleagues reported a similarly high prevalence of 24% but a low mean bone loss of 0.60 mm also after 10 years.94 The threshold of bone loss for the diagnosis for peri‐implantitis was any bone loss and this could explain the high reported prevalence. If one were to apply the guidelines of the 8th European Workshop on Periodontology on their material, the prevalence would not be 23.8% but 0%. Also, Renvert reported peri‐implantitis prevalence of 32.1% and 39.7% for both treatment groups, respectively.80 The implants evaluated after 13 years showed a mean bone loss of 0.8 mm for TiOblast surfaces and 1.0 mm for TiUnite surfaces of peri‐implantitis in both treatment groups. Despite this low mean bone loss, high bleedings scores around the implants of 82% and 90% were reported.
Table 6: Overview of studies giving a frequency distribution for implants with bone loss > 2mm in relation to prevalence of peri-implantitis and cut-off bone loss.
 Article number
  Author
  Mean bone loss (SD)
  % Implants with estimated bone loss> 2 mm based on given mean and SD
  Frequency distribution of implants with bone loss > 2mm as reported in the paper
  Reported prevalence of peri- implantitis
  Cut-off bone loss (mm)
  1 Shi et al.98
4a den Hartog
4b et al.86
4c
8 Cassetta et al.89
9 Ekfeldt et al.92
11 Tey et al.78
14 Derks et al.83
16 Donati et al.77
20 van Velzen et al.97 22 Meijer et al.93
25 Simion et al.114
30 Chappuis et al.14 32 Frisch et al.95
36 Ostman et al.88
1.19 (1.07) 22% 8.5% 1.26 (0.90) 21% 17.3% 1.20 (1.10) 23% 16.% 2.28 (0.97) 61% 64.0% 0.59 (1.34) 15% 13.3% 0.26 (0.60) 0% 3.33% 1.05 (1.07) 19% 18.0% 0.72 (1.15) 13% 9.9 0.61 (2.10) 25% 9.0% 1.21 (0.94) 20% 5.99% 1.10 (1.10) 21% 16.0% 1.34 (0.79) 20% 10.0% 0.14 (1.09) 4% 0.0% 1.80 (1.50) 45% 35.0% 0.70 (1.35) 17% 11.3%
8.5% 2 7.7% - 14.2% - 11.5% - 4.9% - 13.0% 0.6 7.1% 2.5 24.9 0.5 8.6% 2 7.0% 1.5 20.3% 2 0.0% - 20.0% - 8.0% 3.5 1.90% -
 The article number refers to the reference provided in Table 1
A serious problem in this review is the heterogeneity of the data and the variation of the follow‐up time within each study. This was recognized by previous authors (Frisch, Ziebolz & Rinke, 2013; Eriksson & Guisado‐Moya, 2014) and obvious from the study of Jensen, Meijer, Raghoebar, Kerdijk and Cune.95,96 The latter had a mean
53
 3






































































   53   54   55   56   57