The use of autologous bone for augmentation procedures leads to low prevalence of peri-implantitis–a retrospective study over a 20-year period

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants inserted into pristine bone (control) to implants where autologous bone was used for grafting procedures (study).All patients who underwent implant surgery during a 20 years interval by one maxillofacial implant surgeon and received a prosthodontic rehabilitation afterwards were eligible for inclusion in the study. Periimplant bone resorption and periimplant disease were assessed.Of 421 patients 384 (91.2%) patients responded to a recall after having been treated over a 20-year period by one maxillofacial surgeon and several dentists. A total of 110 patients had 239 implants in pristine bone, and 274 patients had 607 implants placed in combination with autologous bone grafting procedures. Mean time in function was 74 months (range 15–236 months). In all, 342 implants (34.8%) were in function for longer than 7 years. A total of 64 implant sites (7.6%) in 39 patients (10.2%) showed signs of peri-implant mucositis. In addition, 17 implants (2.0%) in 14 patients (3.6%) revealed signs of peri-implantitis, of which five implants were in the control group (2.09%) whereas 12 implants were in the study group (1.98%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.8405). More than half of the patients with peri-implantitis had a history of periodontitis. Three implants were lost due to peri-implantitis and four implants failed for other reasons, resulting in an overall success rate of 99.2% in 846 implants. ConclusionsWithin the limitations of the study it seems that the use of autologous bone still is a relevant option when performing augmentation procedures because of the low prevalence of peri-implantitis.