Peri-implant clinicoradiographic status among betel-quid chewers and controls

3Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The aim of the present case-control observational study was to evaluate the peri-implant clinicoradiographic status among betel-quid chewers and controls. Self-reported betel-quid chewers and controls were included. Participants were categorized into 3 groups: Group-1: Individuals chewing betel-quid with tobacco; Group-2: Individuals chewing betel-quid without tobacco; and Group-3: Controls (individuals not using tobacco in any form). Demographic data was collected using a questionnaire. Periodontal and peri-implant clinicoradiologic parameters (plaque and gingival indices [PI and GI], probing depth [PD] and crestal bone loss/marginal bone loss [CBL/MBL]) were assessed. Clinical attachment loss (AL) around teeth was also assessed. Group comparisons were done using the one-way analysis of variance and Bonferroni Post-hoc adjustment tests. Correlation of periodontal and peri-implant inflammatory parameters with the duration of betel-quid chewing habit and duration of placement in the mouth were assessed using logistic regression analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Thirty, 30 and 30 patients were included in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Full-mouth PI (P<0.01), GI (P<0.01), clinical AL (P<0.01), PD (P<0.01) and mesial and distal MBL (P<0.01) were higher in groups 1 and 2 than Group-3. Peri-implant mPI (P<0.01), mGI (P<0.01), PD (P<0.01) and MBL/CBL (P<0.01) were significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 than Group-3 with no significant difference in groups 1 and 2. Betel-quid chewing habit either with or without tobacco is a risk-factor of peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation and CBL.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alqutub, M. N., Alali, Y., Tulbah, H. I., Javed, F., Vohra, F., & Abduljabbar, T. (2022). Peri-implant clinicoradiographic status among betel-quid chewers and controls. Brazilian Dental Journal, 33(4), 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202204676

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free