Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 2 5. Apr. 2018
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 33 (2018), No. 2 (05.04.2018)
Page 457-465, doi:10.11607/jomi.6178, PubMed:29534135
Incidence of Peri-implant Diseases on Implants With and Without Laser-Microgrooved Collar: A 5-Year Retrospective Study Carried Out in Private Practice Patients
Guarnieri, Renzo / Grande, Maurizio / Zuffetti, Francesco / Testori, Tiziano
Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis around dental implants with the same body design and surface but different collar surface (laser-microgrooved vs not laser-microgrooved) after 5 years of loading in private practice patients.
Materials and Methods: The study was carried out on patients at a private dental clinic enrolled in a periodontal maintenance program, who received at least one implant with a laser-microgrooved collar surface and one implant without a laser-microgrooved collar surface. Clinical variables such as plaque, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, suppuration, and radiographic marginal bone loss at > 5 years around implants were investigated. The correlation between the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis/peri-implantitis and biotype, keratinized tissue width, prosthetic connection type, and prosthetic design type was also analyzed.
Results: A total of 166 implants in 74 patients were investigated. At the end of the 5-year follow-up period, 38 implants presented peri-implant mucositis, accounting for 22.8% of the total, affecting a total of 24 patients (32.4%), while 13 implants (7.8%) in 10 patients (13.5%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. Sixteen of 82 laser-microgrooved implants (19.5%) and 24 of 84 implants (28.5%) without a laser-microgrooved collar presented peri-implant mucositis, while 3 of 82 (3.6%) of laser-microgrooved implants and 10 of 84 (11.9%) implants without a laser-microgrooved collar demonstrated peri-implantitis. Differences in implantbased incidence of peri-implant diseases between implants with and without a laser-microgrooved collar were statistically significant (P < .05).
Conclusion: In private practice patients enrolled in a professional, controlled oral hygiene regimen, implants with a laser-microgrooved collar, compared with implants without a laser-microgrooved collar, presented a statistically significantly lower incidence of peri-implant diseases.
Keywords: dental implants, laser-microgrooved collar surface, peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis, prevalence