Malmö University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Peri-implant marginal bone loss: an academic controversy or a clinical challenge?
Malmö högskola, Faculty of Odontology (OD).ORCID iD: 0000-0003-2100-2446
2012 (English)In: European Journal of Oral Implantology, ISSN 1756-2406, E-ISSN 1756-2414, Vol. 5, p. S13-S19Article, review/survey (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Purpose: The aim of this narrative review was to explore and discuss marginal bone loss around transmucosal oral implants and the related incidence of this biologic complication. Results: Treatment with osseointegrated implants is most often successful and improves the quality of life for the patient. At present only limited data are available to evaluate long-term technical and biological complications. When pen-implant tissue destruction occurs, little is known about the initiating process. Possible factors of relevance for the initiation and progression of peri-implantitis are discussed. Periodontitis, smoking and a variety of local factors are among the most plausible putative reported risk factors. Also, oral hygiene and the inability to clean the reconstruction were reported. The unit for reporting incidence of pen-implant bone loss varies in different studies between implants and patients. Since there seems to be a clustering effect, and implants in the same mouth cannot be considered independent from each other, it is recommended to use the patient as a unit. The different cut-off values for clinical parameters reported in different studies will exert a significant influence on the magnitude of the reported incidence of peri-implantitis. It is suggested that the composite variables including bone loss >= 2 mm, compared to initial radiographs at delivery of the prosthetic device, in combination with bleeding on probing should be interpreted as a 'red flag' for the clinician to critically evaluate if any intervention is indicated in the individual case. Conclusion: Until more solid scientific evidence has been made available, it is likely that the academic controversy in relation to pen-implant bone loss and peri-implantitis will continue.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Quintessense , 2012. Vol. 5, p. S13-S19
Keywords [en]
aetiology, human, incidence, peri-implantitis, review
National Category
Dentistry
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:mau:diva-39253ISI: 000302968000003PubMedID: 22834391Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84864869554Local ID: 15669OAI: oai:DiVA.org:mau-39253DiVA, id: diva2:1519018
Available from: 2021-01-18 Created: 2021-01-18 Last updated: 2024-08-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

PubMedScopus

Authority records

Klinge, Björn

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Klinge, Björn
By organisation
Faculty of Odontology (OD)
In the same journal
European Journal of Oral Implantology
Dentistry

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 30 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf