|
|
||||||||
|
J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 140, No 4, 468-469.
© 2009 American Dental Association |
RESEARCH |
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Critical summary assessment. The authors extensive review of the current literature yielded limited evidence supporting decreased implant longevity and increased implant-related complications in subjects treated for periodontitis.
Evidence quality rating. Limited.
Overall, the nine studies investigators compared at least 2,130 implants placed in 585 patients treated for periodontitis with at least 1,750 implants in 730 patients without a history of treated periodontitis. Investigators in eight studies reported that subjects without a history of treated periodontitis had higher rates of implant survival and success than did subjects with a history of treated periodontitis. Investigators in five studies reported less bone loss in the group without treated periodontitis, and investigators in three studies reported fewer occurrences of peri-implantitis in that group as well. In general, researchers in few of the included studies found a statistically significant difference in measured outcomes between the two groups.
![]()
Clinical question.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
In osseointegrated implants placed in partially dentate patients, how do survival and success rates, osseous levels and incidence of peri-implantitis compare for patients with a history of treated periodontitis and those without a history of treated periodontitis?
![]()
Review methods.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
The authors systematically searched two databases (Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE). The search covered the literature up to and including March 2006. The authors included randomized clinical trials, case control and cohort studies, and case series. They performed a three-stage quality screening twice to increase precision. Studies selected for inclusion involved description of one or more of the specified outcomes: survival and success rates, osseous levels and incidence of peri-implantitis. The authors supplemented the search by hand-checking bibliographies of review articles.
![]()
Main results.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
The authors included nine studies (three prospective cohort studies and six retrospective case-control studies) with varied study designs and methods.
![]()
Conclusions.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
The authors could not make definitive conclusions because of the lack of control for confounding and the variability among case definitions and methods. There is some evidence for less favorable implant therapy outcomes in subjects treated for chronic and aggressive periodontitis. Additional well-designed research, controlled for bias and using uniform outcome definition, will be necessary to yield conclusive evidence.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
![]()
Importance and context.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
Outcome assessment is paramount to understanding the long-term prognosis of implant therapy. From a biological perspective, it is plausible that a history of treated periodontitis may predispose patients to infections or other phenomena that may put implants at enhanced risk of failure. The findings of this review suggested that patients with a history of treatment for periodontitis may require aggressive self-care and professional maintenance care after implant placement.
![]()
Strengths and weaknesses of the systematic review.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
The authors used valid and reliable search methods. They assessed methodological quality by using pre-established criteria, evaluator consensus and a three-tier screening of selected manuscripts. They also assessed publication bias.
![]()
Strength and weakness of the evidence.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
Only nine studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies had differences in terms of methods and outcome definitions. Some studies reported implant-level data, whereas others reported subject-level data. Only two studies reached statistical significance. Additionally, the risk for methodological bias was high in all but one cohort study and one case series, both of which the authors judged to be at medium risk of bias. They made no adjustment for comorbidities (such as smoking) in any study. Differences in outcomes and methods hindered the comparison of results among studies and weakened the conclusions.
![]()
Implications for dental practice.
TOP
ABSTRACT
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strength and weakness of...
Implications for dental...
Only limited conclusions can be reached from this review. The literature provides weak evidence of an association between a history of treated periodontitis and unfavorable implant outcomes. The authors of articles included in this review did not standardize the outcome definitions, and the methodology the authors used to assess them in the studies reviewed was limited. Clinicians may consider informing patients of the preliminary evidence, albeit weak, that supports an increased potential for implant failure in subjects with a history of treated periodontitis.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
W. Gillette PERIODONTITIS AND IMPLANTS J Am Dent Assoc, August 1, 2009; 140(8): 966 - 966. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |