Risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment of peri‐implantitis: A cross‐cultural comparison of U.S. and European periodontists’ considerations

Background Peri‐implantitis (PI) is a growing concern in the dental community worldwide. The study aimed to compare U.S. versus European periodontists’ considerations of risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and management of PI. Methods A total of 393 periodontists from the United States and 100 perio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of periodontology (1970) 2022-04, Vol.93 (4), p.481-492
Main Authors: Polymeri, Angeliki, Loos, Bruno G., Aronovich, Sharon, Steigmann, Larissa, Inglehart, Marita R.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
attitudes
Clinical Translation
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Dental Implants
Dentists
diagnosis
Female
Humans
Male
Original
Peri-Implantitis - diagnosis
Peri-Implantitis - therapy
Periodontitis - diagnosis
Periodontitis - therapy
peri‐implantitis
Risk Factors
surveys and questionnaires
therapeutics
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Peri‐implantitis (PI) is a growing concern in the dental community worldwide. The study aimed to compare U.S. versus European periodontists’ considerations of risk factors, diagnostic criteria, and management of PI. Methods A total of 393 periodontists from the United States and 100 periodontists from Europe (Germany, Greece, Netherlands) responded to anonymous surveys electronically or by mail. Results Compared to U.S. periodontists, European respondents were younger, more likely to be female and placed fewer implants per month (9.12 vs 13.90; P = 0.003). Poor oral hygiene, history of periodontitis, and smoking were considered as very important risk factors by both groups (rated > 4 on 5‐point scale). European periodontists rated poor oral hygiene (4.64 vs 4.45; P = 0.005) and history of periodontitis (4.36 vs 4.10; P = 0.006) as more important and implant surface (2.91 vs 3.18; P = 0.023), occlusion (2.80 vs 3.75; P 
ISSN:0022-3492
1943-3670
DOI:10.1002/JPER.21-0010