Conflict of interest and source of funding statement
Differences in peri-implant conditions between fully and partially edentulous subjects: a systematic review
Article first published online: 5 FEB 2013
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Volume 40, Issue 3, pages 266–286, March 2013
How to Cite
Differences in peri-implant conditions between fully and partially edentulous subjects: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2013; 40: 266–286. 10.1111/jcpe.12013, , , , .
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The study was self-funded by the authors and their institution.
- Issue published online: 5 FEB 2013
- Article first published online: 5 FEB 2013
- Accepted manuscript online: 5 SEP 2012 12:11PM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 26 AUG 2012
- dental implant;
- peri-implant infection;
- peri-implant mucositis;
- periodontal disease
The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant conditions between fully edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES).
Material and methods
A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases were searched for publications up to January 1st 2012. Studies reporting on the bleeding tendency of the peri-implant mucosa and/or studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-implantitis were considered.
Fifty-five publications describing 46 studies were selected. One study described both FES and PES, and all other studies described either FES or PES. Subgroup analyses were performed according to dental status (fully/partially edentulous), follow-up time (≥5 years and ≥ 10 years) and study design (prospective/cross-sectional). FES harboured more plaque at their implants than PES. Modified bleeding index scores were significantly higher in FES, but no differences in bleeding on probing, implant loss and probing pocket depth were observed between FES and PES. No meta-analysis could be performed on prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Overall prevalence of peri-implantitis was 0–3.4% after 5 years and 5.8–16.9% after 10 years of implant evaluation.
FES and PES show comparable implant survival rates. However, no conclusion can be drawn regarding differences in prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis between FES and PES.