Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2025

Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
Peri-implant clinicoradiographic status among betel-quid chewers and controls
Montaser N Alqutub1, Yasser Alali2, Huda I Tulbah3
1Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia.
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.

