2024 Volume 69 Issue 1 Pages 68-75
Purpose: Poor contour of the implant restoration causes plaque accumulation and increases the risk of peri-implantitis. This study aimed to investigate whether the prosthodontic components of dental implants were associated with the prevalence of peri-implantitis.
Methods: We enrolled 185 patients with 348 implants who underwent at least 1-year follow-up after the delivery of the prosthesis from February 2010 to January 2021. Demographic data of the patients and implants and the follow-up period were recorded. The emergence angle, type of cervical crown contour, and contour angle were analyzed using annual bite-wing radiographs. Peri-implantitis in this study was diagnosed if the peri-implant bone loss was greater than 2 mm between the bite-wing radiographs taken at baseline and the latest. Chi-square test, two-sample t-test, and multivariate logistic regression were used to investigate the differences and odds ratios between the peri-implantitis and non-peri-implantitis groups.
Results: The incidence of peri-implantitis was 14.9% during a follow-up period of 1509 days after the delivery of the prosthesis for at least 1-year. Based on the prevalence of non-peri-implantitis and after adjusting for confounding factors, the risk factors identified were bone types for implants (native bone vs. alveolar ridge preservation: adjusted odds ratio = 2.43, P = 0.04). Sex, arch, and guided bone regeneration vs. alveolar ridge preservation have the potential for a statistical difference.
Conclusions: Compared with implants at alveolar ridge preservation sites, implants in the native bone were more prone to peri-implantitis. Further randomized controlled trials are required to determine these associations.
