ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Prevalence of Peri-Implant Bone Loss in Patients with a History of Periodontal Disease: A Retrospective Study.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The primary aim of this retrospective study was to determine the prevalence of peri-implant bone loss in patients with a documented history of periodontal disease. The secondary aim was to evaluate the influence of various demographic, systemic, and prosthetic variables on marginal bone level changes. Material and Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of 261 patients treated with implant-supported prostheses at the Rey Juan Carlos University Clinic between 2018 and 2023. Anonymised data were extracted from clinical records and radiographic archives. Variables analysed included age, sex, smoking status, diabetes mellitus, type of prosthesis, use of transepithelial abutments, implant brand, and periodontal history. Bone loss was categorised as none, <1.5 mm, or >1.5 mm. Statistical analysis employed descriptive statistics, Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests for normality, and non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square) using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 25.0. Results: The overall prevalence of peri-implant bone loss was 24.5%. Within the cohort with a periodontal history (60.5% of patients), the prevalence was 14.5%. Statistical analysis revealed that only the use of a transepithelial abutment (p=0.000) and the implant brand (p=0.001) demonstrated a statistically significant influence on bone loss levels. No significant associations were found with a history of periodontitis alone, age, sex, diabetic status, smoking habit, or type of prosthetic restoration. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, a history of periodontal disease was not a determining factor for increased peri-implant bone loss. The findings underscore the critical importance of prosthetic design, specifically the use of transepithelial abutments, and implant selection in ensuring favourable medium-term outcomes. These results suggest that stringent periodontal therapy and maintenance protocols may mitigate the inherent risks in this patient population.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.