Influence of maintenance care in periodontally susceptible and non‐susceptible subjects following implant therapy

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 491 - 494
• Main Authors: Tan, Wah Ching, Ong, Marianne M. A., Lang, Niklaus P.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.04.2017
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bleeding; Bone loss; compliance; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Implantation; Dental implants; Dental materials; Dental prosthetics; Dental restorative materials; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; implant dentistry; Male; Middle Aged; Oral Hygiene; periodontally healthy subjects; periodontally susceptible patients; Periodontics; Periodontitis - prevention & control; Postoperative Complications - prevention & control; Prostheses; residual probing depth; Surgical implants; Teeth; Transplants & implants; implant dentistry; periodontally healthy subjects; residual probing depth; periodontally susceptible patients; compliance
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.12824

Objectives To compare the periodontal and peri‐implant conditions of periodontally susceptible and periodontally healthy subjects under maintenance care for a period of at least 3 years. Material and methods Sixty periodontally susceptible patients (PSP) and 56 periodontally non‐susceptible subjects (PHS) were treated with dental implants in the National Dental Centre Singapore (NDCS) and were maintained in a regular supportive periodontal care program for a mean of 6 years. Full mouth bleeding on probing (BoP), full mouth probing pocket depths (PPD), implant loss, and absence of crestal bone loss were recorded at the time of prosthesis delivery and following a mean follow‐up of 6 years 2 months. Results Although there were significant differences in the BoP and the percentage of subjects with tooth probing pocket depth ≥5 mm between PSP and PHS at the time of implant prosthesis installation (T0), there were no significant differences between the two subject groups in the various parameters assessed at the follow‐up visit (T1) (total number of teeth, percentage of subjects with implant probing pocket depth ≥5 mm, percentage of subjects with implant probing pocket depth ≥ 6 mm, absence of crestal bone loss, implant loss). Conclusion Owing to a rigid regular SPT program, implants placed in PSP perform equally well when compared to implants installed in PHS over a mean period of 6‐year follow‐up.