Publications by authors named "Diane M Daubert"

16 Publications

  • Page 1 of 1

Role of thin gingival phenotype and inadequate keratinized mucosa width (<2 mm) as risk indicators for peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis.

J Periodontol 2021 Apr 15. Epub 2021 Apr 15.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA, USA.

Background: There is growing evidence on the impact of thin gingival phenotype (TnP) and inadequate keratinized mucosa width (KMW <2 mm) around dental implants on peri-implant health. This study investigated the role of TnP and inadequate KMW (<2 mm) as risk indicators for peri-implantitis and mucositis and on dental patient-reported outcomes.

Methods: Sixty-three patients with 193 implants (mean follow-up of 6.9 ± 3.7 years) were given a clinical and radiographic examination and a questionnaire to assess patient awareness of food impaction and pain/discomfort. Chi-squared tests and regression analysis for clustered data were used to compare outcomes.

Results: Implants with TnP had a statistically higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (27.1% versus 11.3%; PR, 3.32; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.64-6.72; P = 0.001) peri-implant mucositis (42.7% versus 33%; PR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.12-2.9; P = 0.016) and pain/discomfort during oral hygiene (25% versus 5%; PR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.06-12.96; P = 0.044) than thick phenotype. Implants with inadequate KMW had a statistically higher prevalence of peri-implantitis (24.1% versus 17%; PR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.07-3.25; P = 0.027) and peri-implant mucositis (46.6% versus 34.1%; PR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1-2.33; P = 0.05) and pain/discomfort during oral hygiene (28% versus 10%; PR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.1-5.1; P = 0.027) than the adequate KMW. TnP was strongly associated with inadequate KMW (PR = 3.18; 95% CI, 1.69-6.04; P <0.001).

Conclusion: TnP and inadequate KMW (<2 mm) may be significant risk indicators for peri-implant disease and pain/discomfort during brushing.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JPER.20-0792DOI Listing
April 2021

Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth as a risk-indicator for peri-implant disease-A cross-sectional study.

Clin Oral Implants Res 2021 Feb 25. Epub 2021 Feb 25.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington School of Dentistry, Seattle, WA, USA.

Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between interproximal open contacts and peri-implant disease. The secondary aim was to assess patient-reported outcome measures in relation to contact status.

Materials And Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 61 patients with 142 implants adjacent to at least one natural tooth. Patients underwent a clinical examination to assess contact status and width, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), periodontal probing depths (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP). Radiographic marginal bone level was measured in vertical bitewings taken within one year. A diagnosis was given to each implant. Last, subjects completed a brief questionnaire. Rao-scott chi-squared tests and generalized estimating equations (GEE) models were used to compare outcomes between groups.

Results: Seventy-seven (54.2%) implants were found to have ≥1 interproximal open contact. Sixty-five (45.8%) implants had closed contacts only. Implants with interproximal open contacts were significantly associated with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis (p = .003) and increased prevalence of peri-implant disease (adjusted PR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.09-2.27, p = .015). Open contact status was also associated with higher PPD (p = .045), PI scores (p = .036), and GI scores (p = .021). Open contact prevalence was 75.4% on the patient-level and 54.2% on the implant-level, involving the mesial surface of the implant restorations 68.5% of the time (p < .001).

Conclusion: Interproximal open contacts between implant restorations and adjacent natural teeth are a risk indicator for peri-implant disease. Adequate contact between implant restorations and natural teeth may contribute to the health of peri-implant tissues.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13730DOI Listing
February 2021

Impact of a change in classification criteria on the prevalence of peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional analysis.

J Periodontol 2020 Dec 5. Epub 2020 Dec 5.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Background: Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding but estimates of its prevalence vary widely. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. In 2017 the World Workshop on Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions established new criteria for disease definitions. The aim of this study is to assess the potential impact of a new definition on the future reporting of peri-implant disease.

Methods: Data from a 2015 report of peri-implant prevalence were examined using the new diagnostic criteria. This cross-sectional study was performed on 95 patients with 220 implants who had their implants placed between 1998 and 2003. An examiner masked to the previous diagnosis examined the radiographs and patient data to make a diagnosis based on 3 mm of bone loss from the expected level of bone. This reanalysis was used to calculate the prevalence of peri-implant disease and generate new relative risk indicators.

Results: The mean follow-up time for the patients was 10.9 years. Using the 2017 criteria, peri-implant mucositis was found in 35.3% of the implants and 52.2% of the subjects, and peri-implantitis occurred in 8.7% of the implants and 15.2% of the subjects. This constituted a drop in peri-implantitis at both patient and implant level of nearly 50% from the prior analysis. Smoking at time of implant placement emerged as a new risk factor in this analysis that was not identified in the prior analysis.

Conclusions: The new diagnostic criteria significantly reduce the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis and bring new risk factors into focus.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JPER.20-0566DOI Listing
December 2020

Biofilm as a risk factor in implant treatment.

Periodontol 2000 2019 10;81(1):29-40

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.

This article summarizes the microbiological findings at dental implants, drawing distinctions between the peri-implant microbiome and the periodontal microbiome, and summarizes what is known regarding biofilm as a risk factor for specific stages of implant treatment. Targeted microbial analysis is reviewed as well as the latest results from open-ended sequencing of the peri-implant flora. At this time there remains a lack of consensus for a specific microbial profile that is associated with peri-implantitis, suggesting that there may be other factors which influence the microbiome such as titanium surface dissolution. Therapeutic interventions to address the biofilm are presented at the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative stages. Evidence supports that perioperative chlorhexidine reduces biofilm-related implant complications and failure. Regular maintenance for dental implants is also shown to reduce peri-implant mucositis and implant failure. Maintenance procedures should aim to disrupt the biofilm without damaging the titanium dioxide surface layer in an effort to prevent further oxidation. Evidence supports the use of glycine powder air polishing as a valuable adjunct to conventional therapies for use at implant maintenance visits. For the treatment of peri-implantitis, nonsurgical therapy has not been shown to be effective, and while surgical intervention is not always predictable, it has been shown to be superior to nonsurgical treatment for decontamination of the implant surface that is not covered by bone.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/prd.12280DOI Listing
October 2019

Patient-Centered Risk Assessment in Implant Treatment Planning.

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019 March/April;34(2):506–520. Epub 2019 Feb 4.

Purpose: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on estimating cumulative risk for biologic complications relating to dental implants and to develop a patient-centered risk assessment tool for establishing aggregate risk.

Materials And Methods: A review of the scientific literature on risk indicators relating to dental implants was completed with the goal of identifying and weighting individual risk indicators so aggregate biologic risk could be estimated. Three authors completed independent reviews of the literature, identifying 31 systematic reviews on risk indicators for biologic complications with dental implants, from which 24 potential risk indicators were considered. Due to inconclusive scientific data on risk indicators, a Delphi process was used to gather structured expert opinion to supplement findings from the literature. Eleven Delphi participants with expertise in prosthodontics or periodontics participated in two email exchanges and one face-to-face meeting to comment and debate on the initial identification and weighting of risk indicators, propose the addition or removal of risk indicators, and provide recommended clinical management for each risk indicator.

Results: After three rounds of debate, literature review, and additions and removals of various risk indicators, consensus (defined as 95% or more in agreement) was achieved on 20 risk indicators. The Delphi group concluded that the risk indicators of smoking, diabetes, antiresorptive agents, and cemented restorations should include subcategories to more accurately identify and represent patient-specific risk. Clinical recommendations based on individual and aggregate risk were established by consensus.

Conclusion: The literature on risk indicators for biologic complications was conflicting and inconclusive. The Delphi method was used to identify and establish the weighting of individual risk indicators, resulting in a risk assessment tool for estimating aggregate risk.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7025DOI Listing
May 2019

Restoration contour is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional radiographic analysis.

J Clin Periodontol 2018 02 5;45(2):225-232. Epub 2017 Dec 5.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to determine whether restoration emergence angle was associated with peri-implantitis.

Materials And Methods: A data set consisting of 96 patients with 225 implants (mean follow-up: 10.9 years) was utilized. Implants were divided into bone-level and tissue-level groups, and radiographs were analysed to determine the restoration emergence angles, as well as restoration profiles (convex or concave). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed based on probing depth and radiographic bone loss. Associations between peri-implantitis and emergence angles/profiles were assessed using generalized estimating equations.

Results: Eighty-three patients with 168 implants met inclusion criteria. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was significantly greater in the bone-level group when the emergence angle was >30 degrees compared to an angle ≤30 degrees (31.3% versus 15.1%, p = .04). In the tissue-level group, no such correlation was found. For bone-level implants, when a convex profile was combined with an angle of >30 degrees, the prevalence of peri-implantitis was 37.8% with a statistically significant interaction between emergence angle and profile (p = .003).

Conclusions: Emergence angle of >30 degrees is a significant risk indicator for peri-implantitis and convex profile creates an additional risk for bone-level implants, but not for tissue-level implants.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12829DOI Listing
February 2018

Consensus Conference Findings on Supragingival and Subgingival Air Polishing.

Compend Contin Educ Dent 2017 Feb;38(2):e1-e4

Private Practice, Burlington, WA.

A consensus conference was convened to evaluate and address issues of safety and efficacy when using glycine powder in an air-powder jet device for supra- and subgingival applications during dental prophylaxis and periodontal maintenance. The conference reported the following conclusions: 1) Supra- and subgingival air polishing using glycine powder is safe and effective for removal of biofilms from natural tooth structure and restorative materials; 2) there is no evidence of soft-tissue abrasion when using glycine powder in an air-polishing device; 3) in periodontal probing depths of 1 mm to 4 mm, glycine-powder air polishing, using a standard air-polishing nozzle, is more effective at removing subgingival biofilm than manual or ultrasonic instruments; and 4) at probing depths of 5 mm to 9 mm, using a subgingival nozzle, glycine powder air polishing is more effective at removing subgingival biofilm than manual or ultrasonic instrumentation. This conference statement, supported by an industry grant, was drafted by a panel of distinguished dental professionals.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
February 2017

Increased Levels of Dissolved Titanium Are Associated With Peri-Implantitis - A Cross-Sectional Study.

J Periodontol 2017 05 18;88(5):436-442. Epub 2016 Nov 18.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Background: Peri-implantitis represents a disruption of the biocompatible interface between the titanium dioxide layer of the implant surface and the peri-implant tissues. Increasing preclinical data suggest that peri-implantitis microbiota not only triggers an inflammatory immune response but also causes electrochemical alterations of the titanium surfaces, i.e., corrosion, that aggravate this inflammatory response. Thus, it was hypothesized that there is an association between dissolution of titanium from dental implants, which suggests corrosion, and peri-implantitis in humans. The objective of this study is to compare levels of dissolved titanium in submucosal plaque collected from healthy implants and implants with peri-implantitis.

Methods: Submucosal plaque from 20 implants with peri-implantitis and 20 healthy implants was collected with sterile curets from 30 participants. Levels of titanium were quantified using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry and normalized for mass of bacterial DNA per sample to exclude confounding by varying amounts of plaque per site. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimated equations to adjust for clustering of implants per participant.

Results: Implants with peri-implantitis harbored significantly higher mean levels of titanium (0.85 ± 2.47) versus healthy implants (0.07 ± 0.19) after adjusting for amount of plaque collected per site (P = 0.033).

Conclusions: Greater levels of dissolved titanium were detected in submucosal plaque around implants with peri-implantitis compared with healthy implants, indicating an association between titanium dissolution and peri-implantitis. Factors triggering titanium dissolution, as well as the role of titanium corrosion in the peri-implant inflammatory process, warrant further investigation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2016.160524DOI Listing
May 2017

Human enamel thickness and ENAM polymorphism.

Int J Oral Sci 2016 06 30;8(2):93-7. Epub 2016 Jun 30.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

The tooth enamel development gene, enamelin (ENAM), showed evidence of positive selection during a genome-wide scan of human and primate DNA for signs of adaptive evolution. The current study examined the hypothesis that a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) C14625T (rs7671281) in the ENAM gene identified in the genome-wide scan is associated with a change in enamel phenotype. African Americans were selected as the target population, as they have been reported to have a target SNP frequency of approximately 50%, whereas non-Africans are predicted to have a 96% SNP frequency. Digital radiographs and DNA samples from 244 teeth in 133 subjects were analysed, and enamel thickness was assessed in relation to SNP status, controlling for age, sex, tooth number and crown length. Crown length was found to increase with molar number, and females were found to have thicker enamel. Teeth with larger crowns also had thicker enamel, and older subjects had thinner enamel. Linear regression and generalized estimating equations were used to investigate the relationship between enamel thickness of the mandibular molars and ENAM SNP status; enamel in subjects with the derived allele was significantly thinner (P=0.040) when the results were controlled for sex, age, tooth number and crown length. The derived allele demonstrated a recessive effect on the phenotype. The data indicate that thinner dental enamel is associated with the derived ENAM genotype. This is the first direct evidence of a dental gene implicated in human adaptive evolution as having a phenotypic effect on an oral structure.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2016.1DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4932773PMC
June 2016

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Recall and Maintenance of Patients with Tooth-Borne and Implant-Borne Dental Restorations.

J Dent Hyg 2016 Feb;90(1):60-9

Purpose: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth- and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations.

Methods: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from 2 systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained.

Results: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised of 1) patient recall; 2) professional maintenance, and 3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations.

Conclusion: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the 2 systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
February 2016

Clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne dental restorations.

J Am Dent Assoc 2016 Jan;147(1):67-74

Purpose: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations.

Materials And Methods: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained.

Results: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations.

Conclusions: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.12.006DOI Listing
January 2016

Clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne dental restorations.

Gen Dent 2016 Jan-Feb;64(1):14-21

The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations. The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, and American Dental Hygienists Association, who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from 2 systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a roundtable discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained. A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the 2 systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
February 2017

Clinical Practice Guidelines for Recall and Maintenance of Patients with Tooth-Borne and Implant-Borne Dental Restorations.

J Prosthodont 2016 Jan;25 Suppl 1:S32-40

Department of Preventive & Restorative Dental Sciences, UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA.

Purpose: To provide guidelines for patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne removable and fixed restorations.

Materials And Methods: The American College of Prosthodontists (ACP) convened a scientific panel of experts appointed by the ACP, American Dental Association (ADA), Academy of General Dentistry (AGD), and American Dental Hygienists Association (ADHA) who critically evaluated and debated recently published findings from two systematic reviews on this topic. The major outcomes and consequences considered during formulation of the clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were risk for failure of tooth- and implant-borne restorations. The panel conducted a round table discussion of the proposed guidelines, which were debated in detail. Feedback was used to supplement and refine the proposed guidelines, and consensus was attained.

Results: A set of CPGs was developed for tooth-borne restorations and implant-borne restorations. Each CPG comprised (1) patient recall, (2) professional maintenance, and (3) at-home maintenance. For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration. The at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations.

Conclusions: The clinical practice guidelines presented in this document were initially developed using the two systematic reviews. Additional guidelines were developed using expert opinion and consensus, which included discussion of the best clinical practices, clinical feasibility, and risk-benefit ratio to the patient. To the authors' knowledge, these are the first CPGs addressing patient recall regimen, professional maintenance regimen, and at-home maintenance regimen for patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne restorations. This document serves as a baseline with the expectation of future modifications when additional evidence becomes available.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12416DOI Listing
January 2016

A Systematic Review of Recall Regimen and Maintenance Regimen of Patients with Dental Restorations. Part 1: Tooth-Borne Restorations.

J Prosthodont 2016 Jan;25 Suppl 1:S2-15

Department of Preventive & Restorative Dental Sciences, UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA.

Purpose: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of dental restorations on natural teeth, standardize patient care regimens, and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies.

Materials And Methods: An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 15 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed in depth to meet the objectives of this review.

Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 2161 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 12 articles that met the objectives of the study. An additional 4 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 16 studies. Out of these, 9 were randomized controlled clinical trials and 7 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (14 out of 16) were conducted in the past 5 years, and most of the studies were conducted in Europe (10). Results from the qualitative data, on a combined 3569 patients, indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristics (adherence to recall appointments, type of restoration and type of restorative material); (2) agent (chlorhexidine, fluoride, triclosan); and (3) professional interventions (repeated oral hygiene instruction, regular oral hygiene intervention).

Conclusions: There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with removable and fixed tooth-borne restorations; however, there is considerable evidence indicating that patients with tooth-borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong dental professional maintenance to provide repeated oral hygiene instruction and regular oral hygiene intervention customized to each patient's treatment. Current evidence also indicates that use of specific oral topical agents like chlorhexidine, fluoride, and triclosan can aid in reducing risk for gingival inflammation, dental caries, and candidiasis. Therefore, these agents may aid in improvement of professional and at-home maintenance of various tooth-borne dental restorations. Furthermore, due to the heterogeneity of patient populations, restorations, and treatment needs, the evidence compels forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne dental restorations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12417DOI Listing
January 2016

A Systematic Review of Recall Regimen and Maintenance Regimen of Patients with Dental Restorations. Part 2: Implant-Borne Restorations.

J Prosthodont 2016 Jan;25 Suppl 1:S16-31

Department of Preventive & Restorative Dental Sciences, UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA.

Purpose: To evaluate the current scientific evidence on patient recall and maintenance of implant-supported restorations, to standardize patient care regimens and improve maintenance of oral health. An additional purpose was to examine areas of deficiency in the current scientific literature and provide recommendations for future studies.

Materials And Methods: An electronic search for articles in the English language literature from the past 10 years was performed independently by multiple investigators using a systematic search process. After application of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final list of articles was reviewed to meet the objectives of this review.

Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 2816 titles. The systematic application of inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in 14 articles that satisfied the study objectives. An additional 6 articles were added through a supplemental search process for a total of 20 studies. Of these, 11 were randomized controlled clinical trials, and 9 were observational studies. The majority of the studies (15 out of 20) were conducted in the past 5 years and most studies were conducted in Europe (15), followed by Asia (2), South America (1), the United States (1), and the Middle East (1). Results from the qualitative data on a combined 1088 patients indicated that outcome improvements in recall and maintenance regimen were related to (1) patient/treatment characteristic (type of prosthesis, type of prosthetic components, and type of restorative materials); (2) specific oral topical agents or oral hygiene aids (electric toothbrush, interdental brush, chlorhexidine, triclosan, water flossers) and (3) professional intervention (oral hygiene maintenance, and maintenance of the prosthesis).

Conclusions: There is minimal evidence related to recall regimens in patients with implant-borne removable and fixed restorations; however, a considerable body of evidence indicates that patients with implant-borne removable and fixed restorations require lifelong professional recall regimens to provide biological and mechanical maintenance, customized for each patient. Current evidence also demonstrates that the use of specific oral topical agents and oral hygiene aids can improve professional and at-home maintenance of implant-borne restorations. There is evidence to demonstrate differences in mechanical and biological maintenance needs due to differences in prosthetic materials and designs. Deficiencies in existing evidence compel the forethought of creating clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with implant-borne dental restorations.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12415DOI Listing
January 2016

Prevalence and predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant failure: a cross-sectional analysis.

J Periodontol 2015 Mar 21;86(3):337-47. Epub 2014 Nov 21.

Department of Periodontics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.

Background: Long-term studies worldwide indicate that peri-implant inflammation is a frequent finding and that the prevalence of peri-implantitis correlates with loading time. Implant loss, although less frequent, has serious oral health and economic consequences. An understanding of predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant loss would help providers and patients make informed decisions.

Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed on 96 patients with 225 implants that were placed between 1998 and 2003. Implant placement data were collected from patient records, and patients presented for a clinical and radiographic follow-up examination. Implant status and periodontal status were determined, the data were analyzed to determine the prevalence of peri-implant disease or implant loss, and a predictive model was tested.

Results: The mean follow-up time for the patients was 10.9 years. The implant survival rate was 91.6%. Peri-implant mucositis was found in 33% of the implants and 48% of the patients, and peri-implantitis occurred in 16% of the implants and 26% of the patients. Individuals with peri-implantitis were twice as likely to report a problem with an implant as individuals with healthy implants. Peri-implantitis is associated with younger ages and diabetes at the time of placement and with periodontal status at the time of follow-up. Implant loss is associated with diabetes, immediate placement, and larger-diameter implants.

Conclusions: One in four patients and one in six implants have peri-implantitis after 11 years. The data suggest that periodontal and diabetes status of the patient may be useful for predicting implant outcomes.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.2014.140438DOI Listing
March 2015