Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- Complication management (1)
- Decision (1)
- Fistula (1)
- Flaps (1)
- Grafts (1)
- Maxillary sinus (1)
- Oral surgery (1)
- Oroantral (1)
- Oroantral communication (1)
- bone loss (1)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
After removal of a dental implant or extraction of a tooth in the upper jaw, the closure of an oroantral fistula (OAF) or oroantral communication (OAC) can be a difficult problem confronting the dentist and surgeon working in the oral and maxillofacial region. Oroantral communication (OAC) acts as a pathological pathway for bacteria and can cause infection of the antrum, which further obstructs the healing process as it is an unnatural communication between the oral cavity and the maxillary sinus. There are different ways to perform the surgical closure of the OAC. The decision-making in closure of oroantral communication and fistula is influenced by many factors. Consequently, it requires a combination of knowledge, experience, and information gathering. Previous narrative research has focused on assessments and comparisons of various surgical techniques for the closure of OAC/OAF. Thus, the decision-making process has not yet been described comprehensively.
The present study aims to illustrate all the factors that have to be considered in the management of OACs and OAFs that determine optimal treatment.
Purpose: To evaluate the prevalence of peri‐implantitis (PI) and peri‐implant mucositis (PM) in a long‐term follow‐up with comparison among different PI and PM definitions, and to report on the incidence of PI.
Materials and Methods: In a retrospective clinical study five different PI and PM definitions were applied onto a population with 274 implants 17 to 23 years postimplant placement. Recommendations by the Eighth European Workshop on Periodontology (EWOP) were used as base reference. Clinical and radiological measurements were considered. Risk factors were evaluated in a regression analysis.
Results: After an average observation period of 18.9 years, 40.1% of the implants were diagnosed with PM and 15.0% with PI (Eighth EWOP). PI incidence reached 7.9% on implant level and 13.2% on patient level. Implants diagnosed with PI and progressive bone loss displayed exceptionally vertical bone defect configuration (BDC). Diabetes mellitus, smoking, regular maintenance, or a former periodontal infection did not show significant influence on the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases. Patients with bruxism displayed significantly less PM and PI.
Conclusions: Vertical BDC seems to correspond with active PI, wherefore we estimate such a defining factor of importance. Diagnosis of PM and evaluation of probing pocket depths might be only of descriptive interest as they could lead to false‐positive results.