Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 145    
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 361-364

Evaluation of clinical parameters in implant maintenance phase for prevention of peri-implantitis

1 Department of Prosthodontics, CSI College of Dental Sciences and Research, Madurai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. H. S. R. S. M Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia, SaudiArabia
4 Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India
5 Department of Prosthodontics, Complete Dental Care, Guwahati, Assam, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Emmanuel P Samson
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. H. S. R. S. M Dental College and Hospital, Hingoli, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_64_18

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis are one of the common biological complications affecting implant success. The present study aimed to evaluate various clinical parameters during implant maintenance phase. Materials and Methods: The study included patients undergoing implant maintenance phase for 1-year follow-up. The study consists of a total of forty individuals with age ranging from 35 to 65years. They were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of their history, i.e., Group1: patients with no history of periodontitis before implant placement and Group2: patients with a history of periodontitis before implant placement. Among the selected patients, a total of 98 implants were studied. All were individually evaluated for clinical parameters such as gingival index, pocket probing depth(PPD), and bleeding on probing(BOP). All the data obtained were tabulated and analyzed using statistical software SPSS version18.0 for Windows(SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Quantitative analysis was done using t-test and Mann–Whitney U-test. Results: The mean age of the patients in Group1 and Group2 was 58.6 and 62.8years, respectively, with not much gender difference. The mean plaque index for Group1 was 0.17±0.20, while for Group2, it was 0.24±0.14. The mean PPD and mean BOP for Group1 came to be 2.60±0.42 and 0.42±0.15, respectively, whereas for Group2, it was 4.08±0.30 and 0.39±0.48, respectively. Only PPD was found to be statistically significantly different between both the groups. Group1 showed 2.0% peri-implantitis, whereas Group2 showed 28% peri-implantitis. Conclusion: Due to increased prevalence of peri-implantitis cases with the increase in usage of implants, it becomes imperative to look up to the etiological factors and contributing factors so that the incidence of these can be minimized.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded271    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal