96 Chapter 6 peri-implant bone change was measured. The reproducibility of this method was evaluated by Telleman et al (2013) and resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.867, which can be interpreted as almost perfect agreement. A case of peri-implantitis was defined as a site showing bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP+) and a MBLC ≥ -2 mm compared to baseline, whereas peri-implant mucositis was defined as a site showing bleeding and/or suppuration on probing (BoP+) with a radiographic MBLC < -2mm, following the consensus reached at the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions24. The incidence of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis was calculated for both groups. Data regarding lost implants due to peri-implantitis, and cases that were treated for peri-implantitis during the evaluation period, were added to the data from the evaluation periods. To enhance appropriate epidemiological descriptions of peri-implant diseases, the distribution of MBLC, the extent (the number of affected implants related to the total number of implants in each affected subject) and the severity (the degree of MBLC that occurred around the affected implants) were calculated. 6.3 RESULTS At T5, 10 participants were lost to follow-up. Four participants had died (two from each group), four were too ill to attend the evaluation (two from each group) and two moved without leaving an address (both from the posterior group), leaving 106 participants for evaluation at T5. At T10, 10 additional participants had died (five from each group), 12 participants were too ill to attend the evaluation (four from the anterior group) and two moved without leaving an address (one from each group), leaving 82 participants for evaluation at T10. It was assumed that the loss to follow-up was independent of the clinical and radiographic condition. During the osseointegration phase, two participants with six implants (one from each group) lost one implant. Since a bar-supported prosthesis could be made for the five remaining implants in the above cases, the lost implants were not replaced. At T5, no additional implants had been lost, resulting in survival rate of 99.6% (anterior group: 99.6%; posterior group 99.7%). At T10, two participants had lost three implants each (one from the anterior group and one from the posterior group), resulting in a survival of 98.2% (anterior group 97.7%; posterior group 98.8%). Both groups’ mean clinical parameters are presented in Table 6.2. The bleeding scores were low throughout the entire study period. The mean PD at T5 was 3.6±1.1 mm for the anterior group and 4.3±1.1 mm for the posterior group. At T10, the mean PD had increased to 4.2±1.1 mm and 4.5±1.2 mm, respectively. The mean MBLC at T5 was -0.4±-0.5 mm for the anterior group and -0.5±-0.7 mm for the posterior group. At T10, the mean MBLC was -0.4±-0.7 mm for the anterior group and -0.5±-0.9 mm for the posterior group.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw