Prevalence and Predictive Factors for Peri-Implant Disease and Implant Failure: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND: Long-term studies worldwide indicate that peri-implant inflammation is a frequent finding and that the prevalence of peri-implantitis correlates with loading time. Implant loss, although less frequent, has serious oral health and economic consequences. An understanding of predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant loss would help providers and patients make informed decisions. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on 96 patients with 225 implants that were placed between 1998 and 2003. Implant placement data were collected from patient records, and patients presented for a clinical and radiographic follow-up examination. Implant status and periodontal status were determined, the data were analyzed to determine the prevalence of peri-implant disease or implant loss, and a predictive model was tested. RESULTS: The mean follow-up time for the patients was 10.9 years. The implant survival rate was 91.6%. Peri-implant mucositis was found in 33% of the implants and 48% of the patients, and peri-implantitis occurred in 16% of the implants and 26% of the patients. Individuals with peri-implantitis were twice as likely to report a problem with an implant as individuals with healthy implants. Peri-implantitis is associated with younger ages and diabetes at the time of placement and with periodontal status at the time of follow-up. Implant loss is associated with diabetes, immediate placement, and larger-diameter implants. CONCLUSIONS: One in four patients and one in six implants have peri-implantitis after 11 years. The data suggest that periodontal and diabetes status of the patient may be useful for predicting implant outcomes. KEYWORDS: Dental implants; diabetes mellitus; follow-up studies; peri-implantitis; periodontitis; risk factor

A plea for the wider use of CRT-P in candidates for cardiac resynchronisation therapy

International audienceSpectacular developments have taken place, in the last 10 years, in the device-based management of heart failure (HF). Patients presenting with chronic HF may benefit from a device implanted with a view to: (1) resynchronise the pump function of a discoordinated failing heart or (2) prevent sudden arrhythmic death by automatic cardioversion or defibrillation. This "point-of-view" article reviews the large amount of information gathered in the past 10 years on the use of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), with or without cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), and puts in perspective the advisability of using one, the other or both treatments in distinct patient subsets. There is currently no strong scientific evidence supporting the systematic implantation of CRT-ICD (CRT-D) instead of CRT pacemakers (CRT-P). Plain common sense should limit the prescription of these costly and complicated devices to patients in need of secondary prevention of ventricular arrhythmias or, for primary prevention, in younger patients without major concomitant illnesses. The preferential choice of CRT-P for the remainder of ambulatory patients in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV is currently acceptable. Because of insufficient data regarding the performance of CRT-P in patients presenting in NYHA functional class I or II, CRT-D is currently the device of choice for this sub-population