| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Marini, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Reliability assessment of the 2018 classification case definitions of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of Periodontology. - 0022-3492. ; 94:12, s. 1461-1474
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability and accuracy in the assignment of the case definitions of peri-implant health and diseases according to the 2018 Classification of Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions. MethodsTen undergraduate students, 10 general dentists, and 10 experts in implant dentistry participated in this study. All examiners were provided with clinical and radiographic documentation of 25 dental implants. Eleven out the 25 cases were also accompanied by baseline readings. Examiners were asked to define all cases using the 2018 classification case definitions. Reliability among examiners was evaluated using the Fleiss kappa statistic. Accuracy was estimated using percentage of complete agreement and quadratic weighted kappa for pairwise comparisons between each rater and a gold standard diagnosis. ResultsThe Fleiss kappa was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.48 to 0.51) and the mean quadratic weighted kappa value was 0.544. Complete agreement with the gold standard diagnosis was achieved in 59.8% of the cases. Expertise in implantology affected accuracy positively (p < 0.001) while the absence of baseline readings affected it negatively (p < 0.001). ConclusionBoth reliability and accuracy in assigning case definitions to dental implants according to the 2018 classification were mostly moderate. Some difficulties arose in the presence of specific challenging scenarios.
|
|
| 3. |
- Jepsen, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Regeneration of alveolar ridge defects. Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - : Wiley. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 46, s. 277-286
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and Aims Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. Material and Methods The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. Results A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. Conclusions The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for post-operative complications.
|
|
| 4. |
- Jepsen, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Regenration of alveolar ridge defects : Consensus report of group 4 of the 15th European Workshop on Periodontology on Bone Regeneration
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Clinical Periodontology. - 0303-6979 .- 1600-051X. ; 46, s. 277-286
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects.MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures.RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long-term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla.CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for postoperative complications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
|
|
| 5. |
- Thoma, Daniel S., et al.
(författare)
-
Soft tissue management at implants: : Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Clinical Oral Implants Research. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 0905-7161 .- 1600-0501. ; 32:S21, s. 174-180
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The task of working Group 2 at the 6th Consensus Meeting of the European Association for Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment.Materials and methods: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on (i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, (ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and (iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions.Results: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect on PROMs.Conclusions: Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.
|
|
