Aim: The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant conditions between fully edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES).... » More

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare peri-implant conditions between fully

edentulous (FES) and partially edentulous subjects (PES).

Material and methods: A systematic review was conducted. The MEDLINE, EM-

BASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for publications up to 1 January

2012. Studies reporting on the bleeding tendency of the peri-implant mucosa and/

or studies reporting on the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and/or peri-im-

plantitis were considered.

Results: Fifty-five publications describing 46 studies were selected. One study

described both FES and PES, and all other studies described either FES or PES.

Subgroup analyses were performed according to dental status (fully/partially

edentulous), follow-up time (
5 years and
10 years) and study design (pro-

spective/cross-sectional). FES harboured more plaque at their implants than PES.

Modified bleeding index scores were significantly higher in FES, but no differ-

ences in bleeding on probing, implant loss and probing pocket depth were

observed between FES and PES. No meta-analysis could be performed on preva-

lence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. Overall prevalence of peri-im-

plantitis was 0–3.4% after 5 years and 5.8–16.9% after 10 years of implant

evaluation.

Conclusion: FES and PES show comparable implant survival rates. However, no

conclusion can be drawn regarding differences in prevalence of peri-implant

mucositis and peri-implantitis between FES and PES.

« Hide