Risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of peri‐implantitis: A cross‐cultural comparison of U.S. and European periodontists’ considerations

• Published in: Journal of periodontology (1970) Vol. 93; no. 4; pp. 481 - 492
• Main Authors: Polymeri, Angeliki, Loos, Bruno G., Aronovich, Sharon, Steigmann, Larissa, Inglehart, Marita R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.04.2022
• Subjects: attitudes; Cross-Cultural Comparison; Dental Implants; Dentists; diagnosis; Female; Humans; Male; Peri-Implantitis - diagnosis; Peri-Implantitis - therapy; Periodontitis - diagnosis; Periodontitis - therapy; peri‐implantitis; Risk Factors; surveys and questionnaires; therapeutics; United States; United States; diagnosis; risk factors; therapeutics; surveys and questionnaires; attitudes; peri-implantitis
• ISSN: 0022-3492; 1943-3670
• DOI: 10.1002/JPER.21-0010

Background Peri‐implantitis (PI) is a growing concern in the dental community worldwide. The study aimed to compare U.S. versus European periodontists’ considerations of risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and management of PI. Methods A total of 393 periodontists from the United States and 100 periodontists from Europe (Germany, Greece, Netherlands) responded to anonymous surveys electronically or by mail. Results Compared to U.S. periodontists, European respondents were younger, more likely to be female and placed fewer implants per month (9.12 vs 13.90; P = 0.003). Poor oral hygiene, history of periodontitis, and smoking were considered as very important risk factors by both groups (rated > 4 on 5‐point scale). European periodontists rated poor oral hygiene (4.64 vs 4.45; P = 0.005) and history of periodontitis (4.36 vs 4.10; P = 0.006) as more important and implant surface (2.91 vs 3.18; P = 0.023), occlusion (2.80 vs 3.75; P < 0.001) and presence of keratinized tissue (3.27 vs 3.77; P < 0.001) as less important than did U.S. periodontists. Both groups rated clinical probing, radiographic bone loss, and presence of bleeding and suppuration as rather important diagnostic criteria. They rated implant exposure/mucosal recession as relatively less important with U.S. periodontists giving higher importance ratings than European periodontists (3.99 vs 3.54; P = 0.001). Both groups nearly always used patient education, plaque control and mechanical debridement when treating PI. U.S. periodontists were more likely to use antibiotics (3.88 vs 3.07; P < 0.001), lasers (2.11 vs 1.68; P = 0.005), allograft (3.39 vs 2.14; P < 0.001) and regenerative approaches (3.57 vs 2.56; P < 0.001), but less likely to use resective surgery (3.09 vs 3.53; P < 0.001) than European periodontists. Conclusions U.S. and European periodontists’ considerations concerning risk factors, diagnosis and management of PI were evidence‐based. Identified differences between the two groups can inform future educational efforts.