Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Evaluation of peri-implant marginal tissues around tissue-level and bone-level implants in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis

Full text
Author(s):
Vianna, Tiago T. [1] ; Taiete, Tiago [1] ; Casarin, Renato C. V. [1] ; Giorgi, Maria C. C. [2] ; Aguiar, Flavio Henrique B. [3] ; Silverio, Karina G. [1] ; Nociti Junior, Francisco H. [1] ; Sallum, Enilson A. [1] ; Casati, Marcio Z. [1]
Total Authors: 9
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Div Periodont, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
[2] Amazonas State Univ, Div Restorat Dent, Manaus, Amazonas - Brazil
[3] Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Div Restorat Dent, Piracicaba, SP - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 3
Document type: Journal article
Source: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY; v. 45, n. 10, p. 1255-1265, OCT 2018.
Web of Science Citations: 2
Abstract

Objective To evaluate clinical and radiographic characteristics in peri-implant marginal tissues in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis, rehabilitated using tissue-level or bone-level implants. Material and MethodsResultsUsing a split-mouth design, 20 patients with a history of chronic periodontitis were selected and received two different implants, tissue-level group (n=20) and the bone-level group (n=20). Peri-implant probing depth, relative peri-implant mucosal margin position, relative peri-implant clinical attachment level, peri-implant plaque index and peri-implant bleeding on probing were evaluated at prosthesis installation, 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24months after implant loading. Radiographic marginal bone level was evaluated at implant insertion, prosthesis installation, 6 and 24months after implant loading. The mean difference of peri-implant marginal bone resorption from implant installation to 24months in function was 0.751.12mm for the tissue-level group and 0.70 +/- 0.72mm for the bone-level group. No statistically significant difference was found between groups at all assessment periods for clinical and radiographic peri-implant evaluation. ConclusionUnder a rigid supportive therapy, both approaches performed likewise regarding clinical and radiographic parameters for rehabilitation of patients with a history of chronic periodontitis. (AU)