View in EDS

Clinical Trends in the Prevention of Peri‐Implantitis: Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) Foundation Survey Using the Delphi Method.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Clinical Trends in the Prevention of Peri‐Implantitis: Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) Foundation Survey Using the Delphi Method.
Authors: Monje, Alberto, Molina, Ana, Argibay, Olalla, de Tapia, Beatriz, Derks, Jan, Figuero, Elena, Guerrero, Adrián, Luengo, Fernando, Montero, Eduardo, Sanz‐Martín, Ignacio, Sanz‐Sánchez, Ignacio, Vallés, Cristina, Nart, José
Source: Clinical Oral Implants Research (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.); Dec2025, Vol. 36 Issue 12, p1560-1574, 15p
Abstract: Objective: To assess clinical trends to prevent peri‐implantitis in applying a two‐step survey based on the Delphi method. Material and Methods: A panel of participants aged < 45 years old selected by the Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) was asked to answer a survey with 75 statements prepared by a steering committee. Items were divided into 5 major areas: etiopathogenesis and epidemiology, surgical, implant, and prosthetic‐related factors on the onset/progression of peri‐implantitis, and self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene. Degree of agreement or disagreement among participants was reported. Results: In total, 44 participants responded favorably to participate in the survey. From the 75 statements formulated, 35 were agreed on in a first round (46.7%). From the 40 statements that did not reach consensus, 16 were agreed on in a second round (40.0%). Overall, 51 out of 75 statements (68.0%) achieved consensus in a second round. From these, 36 (48.0%) were in agreement, while 15 (20.0%) were in disagreement. The sections that explored surgical‐related factors and prosthesis‐related factors of peri‐implantitis yielded the highest level of conflict (9/18 and 8/14 statements demonstrated indeterminate agreement, respectively). In the sections on the etiopathogenesis and epidemiology of peri‐implantitis and implant‐related factors, most items reached consensus (14/17 and 10/13 items, respectively). The section on self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene obtained the highest level of consensus, with only 1/13 items showing dissent among the participants. Conclusion: The results of this study on the clinical trends in the prevention of peri‐implantitis showed consensus agreement for ∼70% of the statements evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Clinical Oral Implants Research (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Complementary Index
Description
Abstract:Objective: To assess clinical trends to prevent peri‐implantitis in applying a two‐step survey based on the Delphi method. Material and Methods: A panel of participants aged < 45 years old selected by the Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA) was asked to answer a survey with 75 statements prepared by a steering committee. Items were divided into 5 major areas: etiopathogenesis and epidemiology, surgical, implant, and prosthetic‐related factors on the onset/progression of peri‐implantitis, and self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene. Degree of agreement or disagreement among participants was reported. Results: In total, 44 participants responded favorably to participate in the survey. From the 75 statements formulated, 35 were agreed on in a first round (46.7%). From the 40 statements that did not reach consensus, 16 were agreed on in a second round (40.0%). Overall, 51 out of 75 statements (68.0%) achieved consensus in a second round. From these, 36 (48.0%) were in agreement, while 15 (20.0%) were in disagreement. The sections that explored surgical‐related factors and prosthesis‐related factors of peri‐implantitis yielded the highest level of conflict (9/18 and 8/14 statements demonstrated indeterminate agreement, respectively). In the sections on the etiopathogenesis and epidemiology of peri‐implantitis and implant‐related factors, most items reached consensus (14/17 and 10/13 items, respectively). The section on self‐ and professional‐administered oral hygiene obtained the highest level of consensus, with only 1/13 items showing dissent among the participants. Conclusion: The results of this study on the clinical trends in the prevention of peri‐implantitis showed consensus agreement for ∼70% of the statements evaluated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09057161
DOI:10.1111/clr.70030