Biological aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5<sup>th</sup> EAO Consensus Conference 2018
-
- Mariano Sanz
- ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal Diseases) Research Group, Department of Dental Clinical Specialties University Complutense Madrid Spain
-
- Bjorn Klinge
- Department of Dental Medicine Karolinska Institutet Huddinge Sweden
-
- Gil Alcoforado
- Private clinic Lisboa Portugal
-
- Stefan P. Bienz
- Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
-
- Jan Cosyn
- Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Educational Committee Dental School Ghent University Ghent Belgium
-
- Hugo De Bruyn
- Research Cluster Periodontology, Oral Implantology, Removable & Implant Prosthodontics Ghent University Ghent Belgium
-
- Jan Derks
- Department of Periodontology, Institute of Odontology The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg Gothenburg Sweden
-
- Elena Figuero
- ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal Diseases) Research Group, Department of Dental Clinical Specialties University Complutense Madrid Spain
-
- Katarzyna Gurzawska
- Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin Charité Berlin School of Public Health Berlin Germany
-
- Lisa Heitz‐Mayfield
- International Research Collaborative The University of Western Australia Perth WA Australia
-
- Ronald E. Jung
- Center of Dental Medicine, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland
-
- Turker Ornekol
- Cosmodent Center for Dentistry and Dental Implants Istanbul Turkey
-
- Alberto Salgado
- Clinica Salgado Alicante Spain
説明
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>This publication reports the EAO Workshop group‐2 discussions and consensus statements which provided the scientific evidence on the influence of biological parameters on implant‐related clinical outcomes.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Material and methods</jats:title><jats:p>The first publication was a systematic review on the biological effects of abutment material on the stability of peri‐implant marginal bone levels and the second, a critical narrative review on how peri‐implant diagnostic parameters correspond with long‐term implant survival and success. The group evaluated the content of both publications, made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the consensus statements, clinical recommendations and recommendations for future research, which are described in this consensus report.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Tested abutment materials can be considered appropriate for clinical use according to the observation period studied (mean 3.5 years). Mean peri‐implant bone loss and mean probing pocket depths are not adequate outcomes to study the prevalence of peri‐implantitis, while the reporting of frequency distributions is considered more appropriate.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Titanium is currently considered the standard of care as abutment material, although other materials may be more suitable for aesthetic locations. Peri‐implantitis should be diagnosed through composite evaluations of peri‐implant tissue inflammation and assessment of marginal bone loss with different thresholds.</jats:p></jats:sec>
収録刊行物
-
- Clinical Oral Implants Research
-
Clinical Oral Implants Research 29 (S18), 152-156, 2018-10
Wiley