Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGargallo-Albiol, Jordi
dc.contributor.authorTavelli, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.authorBarootchi, Shayan
dc.contributor.authorMonje, Alberto
dc.contributor.authorWang, Hom-Lay
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-16T14:33:29Z
dc.date.available2025-01-16T14:33:29Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationGargallo-Albiol, Jordi; Tavelli, Lorenzo: Barootchi, Shayan [et al.]. Clinical sequelae and patients’ perception of dental implant removal: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Periodontology, 2020, 92(6), p. 823-832. Disponible en: <https://aap.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/JPER.20-0259>. Fecha de acceso: 16 ene. 2025. DOI: 10.1002/JPER.20-0259ca
dc.identifier.issn0022-3492ca
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12328/4544
dc.description.abstractBackground: A cross-sectional study was designed to shed light on the clinical sequelae and patient satisfaction after dental implant removal (IR). Methods: Patients undergoing ≥1 IRs were eligible. The reasons for implant failure, clinical and radiological parameters before and after IR, and the surgical and prosthetic treatments offered after IR was assessed. Patient satisfaction was recorded and the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 was used to document patient self-reported dysfunction and discomfort attributed to IR. Lastly, patient expectations after IR were also evaluated. Results: Thirty-one patients with 45 implants were analyzed. Peri-implantitis was the main reason for IR (64.5%). The average implant survival time before IR was 120.3 ± 88.2 months. Signs of infection (51.7%) and bleeding on probing (37.5%) were common signs detected at the time of IR. Guided bone regeneration was the intervention most commonly applied simultaneously to IR (74.1%). The reported degree of satisfaction was high, and the overall OHIP-14 score was low. However, a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was recorded, and a statistically significant increase in adherence to the implant maintenance routine was observed after IR. Conclusions: Peri-implantitis is the leading cause for IR. Guided bone regeneration is commonly applied to attenuate the clinical sequelae of IR. Nonetheless, IR does not seem to affect patients’ satisfaction nor their quality of life, though a certain patient reluctance to undergo future implant placement in the same clinic or with the same professional was reported.ca
dc.format.extent9ca
dc.language.isoengca
dc.publisherWileyca
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Periodontologyca
dc.relation.ispartofseries92;6
dc.rights© 2025 American Academy of Periodontologyca
dc.subject.otherExtracció d'implants dentalsca
dc.subject.otherExtracción de implantes dentalesca
dc.subject.otherExtraction of dental implantsca
dc.titleClinical sequelae and patients' perception of dental implant removal: a cross-sectional studyca
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleca
dc.description.versioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionca
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapca
dc.subject.udc616.3ca
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1002/JPER.20-0259ca


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Share on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on FacebookShare on TelegramShare on WhatsappPrint