Risk indicators / factors for peri-implant mucositis (2)
Oral hygiene
Outcomes of cross‐sectional clinical studies have clearly indicated that biofilm accumulation is associated with the presence of peri‐implant mucositis around osseointegrated dental implants. Ferreira et al. reported on 212 patients treated with three different implant systems and diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis. All implants had been in function for a period ranging from 6 months to 5 years. The modified plaque index was recorded, and the full‐mouth plaque scores were stratified as good (median score ≤1), poor (median score > 1 and < 2), and very poor (median score ≥2). The authors reported a significant dose‐dependent association between plaque scores and peri‐implant mucositis. The prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis was reported as 64.6% at patient level and 62.6% at implant level. Outcomes of another study involving 218 patients with 999 implants in function for a period of 9 to 14 years indicated that plaque scores were significantly associated with the presence of peri‐implant mucositis.
Mechanical biofilm control should be considered the standard of care for management of peri‐implant mucositis administered either by the patient or the oral healthcare professional.
Compliance/lack of compliance with supportive implant therapy (SIT)
Among patients not adhering to regular supportive implant therapy (SIT), peri‐implant mucositis was reported to be a common finding with a prevalence of 48% during an observation period of 9 to 14 years. Conversely, outcomes of a prospective cohort study with a 5‐year follow‐up indicated that implants placed in patients with treated periodontal conditions and adhering to an SIT program yielded a 20% prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis. In that study, upon diagnosis of peri‐implant mucositis, all implants with the exception of one were successfully treated according to a cumulative anti‐infective protocol. Findings from a 3‐month randomized placebo‐controlled clinical trial revealed that mechanical debridement with or without local application of chlorhexidine gel in conjunction with optimal self‐performed biofilm control completely resolved bleeding on probing around 38% of implants diagnosed with peri‐implant mucositis.
Serial posts:
- Peri‐implant mucositis
- Pendahuluan : Peri‐implant mucositis
- Materials & methods : Peri‐implant mucositis
- Definition : Peri‐implant mucositis
- Table 1. Similarities and differences between biofilm‐induced gingivitis and peri‐implant mucositis
- Conversion from healthy peri-implant mucosa to peri-implant mucositis
- Is biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis a reversible disease?
- Experimental peri-implant mucositis models vs long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesions
- Risk indicators / factors for peri-implant mucositis (1)
- Risk indicators / factors for peri-implant mucositis (2)
- Risk indicators / factors for peri-implant mucositis (3)
- Risk indicators / factors for peri-implant mucositis (4)
- Similarities & differences between risk indicators/ factors for periodontal diseases vs peri-implant mucositis
- Table 2. Evidence for factors as risk indicators for peri‐implant mucositis
- Gambar 1. Peri-implant mucositis vs peri-implantitis vs peri-implant health