Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36261829›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2022

What is the prevalence of peri-implantitis? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pedro Diaz, Esther Gonzalo, Luis J Gil Villagra, Barbara Miegimolle, Maria J Suarez

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Pedro DiazDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2523-6629
Esther GonzaloDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain. esgonzal@ucm.es.ORCID 0000-0002-8458-6269
Luis J Gil VillagraDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8724-1362
Barbara MiegimolleDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2267-261X
Maria J SuarezDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Bucofacial Prosthesis, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense of Madrid (UCM), Pza Ramón y Cajal S/N, 28040, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7452-9255

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeri-implantitis is a usual finding but estimates of its prevalence fluctuate very much. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. This systematic review aims to estimate the overall prevalence of peri-implantitis and the effect of different study designs, function times and use of probing depth on prevalence rate.

methodsFollowing electronic and manual searches of the literature published from January 2005 to December 2021, data were extracted from the studies fitting the study criteria. Fifty-seven articles were included in this study.

resultsPrevalence of peri-implantitis was 19.53% (95% CI 12.87-26.19) at the patient-level, and 12.53% (95% CI 11.67-13.39) at the implant-level and it remains highly variable even following restriction to the clinical case definition. The use of probing depth like diagnostic criteria affected the prevalence data.

conclusionThe results indicate that it remains essential the identification of the diagnostic markers for more accurate disease classification.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisHumansPrevalenceResearch DesignDental ImplantsDental implantsEpidemiologyPeri-implantitis

Identifiers

PMID36261829
PMCPMC9583568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.