Knowledge and Attitude towards Retrograde Peri-Implantitis among Italian Implantologists: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Bianca Di Murro, Nicola Pranno, Andrea Raco, Roberto Pistilli, Giorgio Pompa and Piero Papi
Additional contact information
Bianca Di Murro: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Nicola Pranno: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Andrea Raco: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Roberto Pistilli: Oral and Maxillofacial Unit, San Camillo Hospital, 00152 Rome, Italy
Giorgio Pompa: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy
Piero Papi: Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, 00161 Rome, Italy

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 22, 1-9

Abstract: Background: Retrograde peri-implantitis (RPI) is a pathological entity with an unclear etiology (e.g., overheating during implant insertion, residual infection of the tooth replaced by the implant or the endodontic lesion of neighboring teeth) and an extremely low prevalence and has been scarcely investigated. Therefore, the aim of this cross-sectional survey was to evaluate the knowledge and attitude of Italian implantologists regarding RPI. Methods: An anonymous questionnaire was sent via email to implantologists randomly selected, including a section about demographic information and questions related to RPI origin, radiographic representation, symptoms and treatment options. All questions were multiple answer and close-ended. Binomial logistic regression was performed to investigate the relationship between correct answers and the following independent variables: age, years of experience and number of dental implants placed per year. Results: In total, 475 implantologists completed the questionnaire, with a response rate of 46.3%. Based on the results of the study, incorrect answers were associated with less experienced participants (<80 implants/year) for all questions evaluated, with the exception of treatment strategies. Furthermore, 26.7% of the survey takers did not recognize radiographic representation of RPI and 35.5% picked “implant removal” when asked about treatment modality. Conclusions: The majority of participants were able to recognize symptoms and indicated the probable causes of RPI; however, around 30% of them showed very limited knowledge of available management strategies.

Keywords: retrograde peri-implantitis; peri-implantitis; apical peri-implantitis; survey; implant periapical lesion (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8356/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8356/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:22:p:8356-:d:443558

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().