Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0300571217300957?via%3Dihub
Chun-Teh Lee 1, Yen-Wen Huang 1, Liang Zhu 2, Robin Weltman 3
2017 Jul;62:1-12. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.011. Epub 2017 May 3.
PMID: 28478213
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.04.011
Abstract
Objectives: Due to the inconsistent definitions, reporting methods and study characteristics, prevalences of peri-implant diseases significantly varied in studies. This study aimed to systematically analyze implant-based and subject-based prevalences of peri-implant diseases and assess clinical variables potentially affecting the prevalence.
Sources: Electronic search of studies was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE and Web of Science. Publication screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed.
Study selection: Clinical studies having an at least average three-year follow-up period were selected. The numbers of subjects and implants in the studies had to be equal to or more than thirty.
Data: Forty seven studies were selected and prevalences of peri-implant diseases were analyzed. Since heterogeneity existed in each outcome (I2=94.7, 95.7, 95.3, and 99.3 for implant-based and subject-based peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis, respectively), the random-effects model based on the DerSimonian and Laird method, which incorporate an estimate of heterogeneity in the weighting, was applied to obtain the pooled prevalence. Weighted mean implant-based and subject-based peri-implantitis prevalences were 9.25% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): [7.57, 10.93]) and 19.83% (CI [15.38, 24.27) respectively. Weighted mean implant-based and subject-based peri-implant mucositis prevalences were 29.48% (CI: [22.65, 36.32]) and 46.83% (CI: [38.30, 55.36]) respectively. Functional time and implant to subject ratio were associated with subject-based peri-implantitis prevalence, but not peri-implant mucositis prevalences.
Conclusions: Peri-implant diseases were prevalent and prevalence of peri-implantitis increased over time. Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis might not be highly associated since the prevalences were influenced by distinct variables. The results should be carefully interpreted because of data heterogeneity.
Clinical significance: Peri-implant diseases affect a significant number of dental implants and patients. It is important to understand the difficulties in diagnosis of these diseases and risk factors which may be modified to reduce the potential for disease occurrence or progression.
Keywords: Diagnosis; Epidemiology; Evidence-based dentistry; Inflammation; Review literature as topic; Symptom assessment.
