Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study
Abstract Objectives To evaluate peri-implant bone loss, the presence of peri-implantitis, aesthetic satisfaction, and quality of life in patients with implant-based prosthetic restorations using implants with or without smooth necks, placed in different bone positions. Materials and methods 400 pati...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery 2015-12, Vol.43 (10), p.2168-2174 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 2174 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 2168 |
| container_title | Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery |
| container_volume | 43 |
| creator | Sánchez-Siles, M Muñoz-Cámara, D Salazar-Sánchez, N Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F Camacho-Alonso, F |
| description | Abstract Objectives To evaluate peri-implant bone loss, the presence of peri-implantitis, aesthetic satisfaction, and quality of life in patients with implant-based prosthetic restorations using implants with or without smooth necks, placed in different bone positions. Materials and methods 400 patients received 1,244 implants: 515 with smooth neck monitored over an average of 6.44 ± 2.55 years and 729 without smooth neck monitored over 5.61 ± 2.52 years. Radiographic bone loss, presence of periimplantitis, implant loss, quality of life (OHIP-14), and patient satisfaction with prosthetic esthetics were evaluated, comparing groups. Results 120 implants developed peri-implantitis, 15 with a 2.5 mm smooth neck and 105 without smooth neck. Patients without smooth-necked implants showed a worse quality of life with statistically significant difference ( p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.010 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1750436842</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1010518215003509</els_id><sourcerecordid>1750436842</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-abca87fc0e0f70992c29cf0eef318607b7dbfb30b53d7d9cf288861f734211c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9Uk1v1TAQjBCIlsIf4IB85JLH2nlJHISQqoqPSpU4AGfLsdd00zwntZ2i_BT-LY7egwMHTrZ3Z0bjnS2Klxx2HHjzZtgN5hB3AnidCzvg8Kg457KV5Z7z7nG-51JZcynOimcxDgDQgOyeFmeiqWXH2-68-HXtDVn0Btnk2IyBSjrMo_aJEkWmvWVT0CO7X_RIad1AIzlk5NmsE6FPkQW81T3ltk5o2U9Kt-ykEY8vS85hyFjm0dwxi5F--PiWXbLsb0UdskQKU5zRJHpAFtNi1-fFE6fHiC9O50Xx_eOHb1efy5svn66vLm9KU9c8lbo3WrbOAIJroeuEEZ1xgOgqLhto-9b2rq-gryvb2twSUsqGu7baC84Nry6K10fdOUz3C8akDhQNjtk_TktUvK1hXzVyLzJUHKEmm40BnZoDHXRYFQe1RaIGtUWitki2Wp5_Jr066S_9Ae1fyp8MMuDdEYD5lw-EQUVDWyKWQh6IshP9X__9P3QzkiejxztcMQ7TEnyen-IqCgXq67YU207wGqCqoat-A9tJtPY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1750436842</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Sánchez-Siles, M ; Muñoz-Cámara, D ; Salazar-Sánchez, N ; Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F ; Camacho-Alonso, F</creator><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Siles, M ; Muñoz-Cámara, D ; Salazar-Sánchez, N ; Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F ; Camacho-Alonso, F</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives To evaluate peri-implant bone loss, the presence of peri-implantitis, aesthetic satisfaction, and quality of life in patients with implant-based prosthetic restorations using implants with or without smooth necks, placed in different bone positions. Materials and methods 400 patients received 1,244 implants: 515 with smooth neck monitored over an average of 6.44 ± 2.55 years and 729 without smooth neck monitored over 5.61 ± 2.52 years. Radiographic bone loss, presence of periimplantitis, implant loss, quality of life (OHIP-14), and patient satisfaction with prosthetic esthetics were evaluated, comparing groups. Results 120 implants developed peri-implantitis, 15 with a 2.5 mm smooth neck and 105 without smooth neck. Patients without smooth-necked implants showed a worse quality of life with statistically significant difference ( p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction with prostheses was higher among the group without smooth neck. Conclusions Implants with smooth polished necks would appear to suffer less bone loss and peri-implantitis, and lead to better patient quality of life. However, implants without smooth necks placed crestally led to higher patient satisfaction with aesthetics.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1010-5182</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4119</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.010</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26589179</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Scotland: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - standards ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dentistry ; Humans ; Incidence ; Neck designs ; Oral Health - standards ; Oral quality of life ; Patient satisfaction ; Peri-implantitis ; Peri-Implantitis - epidemiology ; Peri-Implantitis - etiology ; Quality of Life ; Retrospective Studies ; Smooth neck ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery, 2015-12, Vol.43 (10), p.2168-2174</ispartof><rights>European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery</rights><rights>2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-abca87fc0e0f70992c29cf0eef318607b7dbfb30b53d7d9cf288861f734211c13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-abca87fc0e0f70992c29cf0eef318607b7dbfb30b53d7d9cf288861f734211c13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3739-1792</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.010$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3548,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26589179$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Siles, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muñoz-Cámara, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salazar-Sánchez, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camacho-Alonso, F</creatorcontrib><title>Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study</title><title>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery</title><addtitle>J Craniomaxillofac Surg</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives To evaluate peri-implant bone loss, the presence of peri-implantitis, aesthetic satisfaction, and quality of life in patients with implant-based prosthetic restorations using implants with or without smooth necks, placed in different bone positions. Materials and methods 400 patients received 1,244 implants: 515 with smooth neck monitored over an average of 6.44 ± 2.55 years and 729 without smooth neck monitored over 5.61 ± 2.52 years. Radiographic bone loss, presence of periimplantitis, implant loss, quality of life (OHIP-14), and patient satisfaction with prosthetic esthetics were evaluated, comparing groups. Results 120 implants developed peri-implantitis, 15 with a 2.5 mm smooth neck and 105 without smooth neck. Patients without smooth-necked implants showed a worse quality of life with statistically significant difference ( p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction with prostheses was higher among the group without smooth neck. Conclusions Implants with smooth polished necks would appear to suffer less bone loss and peri-implantitis, and lead to better patient quality of life. However, implants without smooth necks placed crestally led to higher patient satisfaction with aesthetics.</description><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - standards</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incidence</subject><subject>Neck designs</subject><subject>Oral Health - standards</subject><subject>Oral quality of life</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Peri-implantitis</subject><subject>Peri-Implantitis - epidemiology</subject><subject>Peri-Implantitis - etiology</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Smooth neck</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1010-5182</issn><issn>1878-4119</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9Uk1v1TAQjBCIlsIf4IB85JLH2nlJHISQqoqPSpU4AGfLsdd00zwntZ2i_BT-LY7egwMHTrZ3Z0bjnS2Klxx2HHjzZtgN5hB3AnidCzvg8Kg457KV5Z7z7nG-51JZcynOimcxDgDQgOyeFmeiqWXH2-68-HXtDVn0Btnk2IyBSjrMo_aJEkWmvWVT0CO7X_RIad1AIzlk5NmsE6FPkQW81T3ltk5o2U9Kt-ykEY8vS85hyFjm0dwxi5F--PiWXbLsb0UdskQKU5zRJHpAFtNi1-fFE6fHiC9O50Xx_eOHb1efy5svn66vLm9KU9c8lbo3WrbOAIJroeuEEZ1xgOgqLhto-9b2rq-gryvb2twSUsqGu7baC84Nry6K10fdOUz3C8akDhQNjtk_TktUvK1hXzVyLzJUHKEmm40BnZoDHXRYFQe1RaIGtUWitki2Wp5_Jr066S_9Ae1fyp8MMuDdEYD5lw-EQUVDWyKWQh6IshP9X__9P3QzkiejxztcMQ7TEnyen-IqCgXq67YU207wGqCqoat-A9tJtPY</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Sánchez-Siles, M</creator><creator>Muñoz-Cámara, D</creator><creator>Salazar-Sánchez, N</creator><creator>Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F</creator><creator>Camacho-Alonso, F</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3739-1792</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study</title><author>Sánchez-Siles, M ; Muñoz-Cámara, D ; Salazar-Sánchez, N ; Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F ; Camacho-Alonso, F</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c551t-abca87fc0e0f70992c29cf0eef318607b7dbfb30b53d7d9cf288861f734211c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - standards</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incidence</topic><topic>Neck designs</topic><topic>Oral Health - standards</topic><topic>Oral quality of life</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Peri-implantitis</topic><topic>Peri-Implantitis - epidemiology</topic><topic>Peri-Implantitis - etiology</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Smooth neck</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sánchez-Siles, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Muñoz-Cámara, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salazar-Sánchez, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Camacho-Alonso, F</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sánchez-Siles, M</au><au>Muñoz-Cámara, D</au><au>Salazar-Sánchez, N</au><au>Ballester-Ferrandis, J.F</au><au>Camacho-Alonso, F</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery</jtitle><addtitle>J Craniomaxillofac Surg</addtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>2168</spage><epage>2174</epage><pages>2168-2174</pages><issn>1010-5182</issn><eissn>1878-4119</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objectives To evaluate peri-implant bone loss, the presence of peri-implantitis, aesthetic satisfaction, and quality of life in patients with implant-based prosthetic restorations using implants with or without smooth necks, placed in different bone positions. Materials and methods 400 patients received 1,244 implants: 515 with smooth neck monitored over an average of 6.44 ± 2.55 years and 729 without smooth neck monitored over 5.61 ± 2.52 years. Radiographic bone loss, presence of periimplantitis, implant loss, quality of life (OHIP-14), and patient satisfaction with prosthetic esthetics were evaluated, comparing groups. Results 120 implants developed peri-implantitis, 15 with a 2.5 mm smooth neck and 105 without smooth neck. Patients without smooth-necked implants showed a worse quality of life with statistically significant difference ( p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction with prostheses was higher among the group without smooth neck. Conclusions Implants with smooth polished necks would appear to suffer less bone loss and peri-implantitis, and lead to better patient quality of life. However, implants without smooth necks placed crestally led to higher patient satisfaction with aesthetics.</abstract><cop>Scotland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>26589179</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.010</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3739-1792</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1010-5182 |
| ispartof | Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery, 2015-12, Vol.43 (10), p.2168-2174 |
| issn | 1010-5182 1878-4119 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1750436842 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods Dental Implantation, Endosseous - standards Dental Prosthesis Design Dentistry Humans Incidence Neck designs Oral Health - standards Oral quality of life Patient satisfaction Peri-implantitis Peri-Implantitis - epidemiology Peri-Implantitis - etiology Quality of Life Retrospective Studies Smooth neck Surgery Treatment Outcome |
| title | Incidence of peri-implantitis and oral quality of life in patients rehabilitated with implants with different neck designs: A 10-year retrospective study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T19%3A30%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Incidence%20of%20peri-implantitis%20and%20oral%20quality%20of%20life%20in%20patients%20rehabilitated%20with%20implants%20with%20different%20neck%20designs:%20A%2010-year%20retrospective%20study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cranio-maxillo-facial%20surgery&rft.au=S%C3%A1nchez-Siles,%20M&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=2168&rft.epage=2174&rft.pages=2168-2174&rft.issn=1010-5182&rft.eissn=1878-4119&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jcms.2015.10.010&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1750436842%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1750436842&rft_id=info:pmid/26589179&rft_els_id=S1010518215003509&rfr_iscdi=true |