Device and program for predicting peri-implant diseases

Abstract

To provide a device capable of predicting a risk of peri-implantitis before implantation and providing information useful to a user to make a decision.SOLUTION: An advance prediction device 1 for peri-implantitis comprises: an evaluation acquisition part 21 which receives an evaluation result of a class 1 evaluation item which is a risk evaluation item of peri-implantitis and consists of an evaluation item other than an evaluation item based upon a state of an implant; a total risk determination part 22 which determines a total risk of peri-implantitis based upon the evaluation result of the class 1 evaluation item and an evaluation result of a class 2 evaluation item which is a risk evaluation item of peri-implantitis and based upon the state of the implant; and a specification part 23 which specifies such an evaluation result of the class 2 evaluation item that the total risk is equal to or lower than a predetermined permissible risk.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 2

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to a device and a program for predicting peri-implant diseases in advance.

Background Art

[0002] Conventionally, methods for evaluating the progression risk of periodontal disease and methods for evaluating the onset risk of peri-implant diseases are known.

[0003] Non-Patent Document 1 describes a method for evaluating the progression risk of periodontal disease from six evaluation items such as the infection level, the prevalence of periodontal pockets, and the ratio of bone resorption to age.

[0004] Non-Patent Document 2 describes a method for evaluating the onset risk of peri-implant diseases from eight evaluation items such as the history of periodontitis, the proportion of bleeding on probing, and the number of sites with a probing depth of 5 mm or more.

[0005] Non-Patent Documents 3 and 4 each describe the classification of periodontal disease and peri-implant diseases.

Prior Art Documents

Non-Patent Documents

[0006]

Non-Patent Document 1

Non-Patent Document 2

[0007] In the method described in Non-Patent Document 2, as evaluation items for evaluating the risk of peri-implant diseases, evaluation items based on the state of the implant in the oral cavity are included. Further, in the method described in Non-Patent Document 2, the risk cannot be evaluated without all the information of the eight evaluation items. That is, the method described in Non-Patent Document 2 examines the current state of the implant for a subject with an implant in the oral cavity and evaluates the risk of future peri-implant diseases. Therefore, with this method, it is not possible to evaluate the risk of peri-implant diseases for a subject without an implant in the oral cavity.

[0008] An object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus and a program that can predict the risk of peri-implant diseases before implant placement and provide information for reference in the user's decision-making.

Means for Solving the Problems

[0009] A pre-prediction device for peri-implant diseases according to an embodiment of the present invention includes an evaluation acquisition unit that receives an evaluation result of a first type of evaluation item that is a risk evaluation item for peri-implant diseases and consists of evaluation items other than evaluation items based on the state of the implant, and based on the evaluation result of the first type of evaluation item and the evaluation result of a second type of evaluation item that is a risk evaluation item for peri-implant diseases and consists of evaluation items based on the state of the implant, a comprehensive risk determination unit that determines the comprehensive risk of peri-implant diseases, and a specifying unit that specifies the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item such that the comprehensive risk is equal to or less than a predetermined allowable risk.

[0010] A program according to an embodiment of the present invention is a program for causing a computer to function as the above-described pre-prediction device for peri-implant diseases.

Effects of the Invention

[0011] According to the present invention, it is possible to predict the risk of peri-implant diseases before implant placement and provide information for reference in the user's decision-making.

Brief Description of Drawings

[0012] [Figure 1] FIG. 1 schematically shows an example of the hardware configuration of a pre - prediction device for peri - implant diseases according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 2] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the functional configuration of a pre - prediction device for peri - implant diseases according to an embodiment of the present invention. [Figure 3] FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of a specific part. [Figure 4] FIG. 4 is a diagram for explaining IDRA. [Figure 5] FIG. 5 is a diagram for explaining IDRA. [Figure 6] FIG. 6 is a flowchart showing an example of pre - prediction of peri - implant diseases. [Figure 7] FIG. 7 is an example of a screen to be displayed on a display device. [Figure 8] FIG. 8 is a diagram for explaining an example of a method for determining a provisional risk. [Figure 9] FIG. 9 is a diagram for explaining an example of a method for determining a provisional risk. [Figure 10] FIG. 10 is a table showing the relationship between the provisional risk determined by the illustrated method and the comprehensive risk.

Embodiments for Carrying Out the Invention

[0013] A pre - prediction device for peri - implant diseases according to an embodiment of the present invention includes an evaluation acquisition unit that receives an evaluation result of a first - type evaluation item that is a risk evaluation item for peri - implant diseases and consists of evaluation items other than the evaluation items based on the state of the implant, a comprehensive risk determination unit that determines the comprehensive risk of peri - implant diseases based on the evaluation result of the first - type evaluation item and the evaluation result of a second - type evaluation item that is a risk evaluation item for peri - implant diseases and consists of evaluation items based on the state of the implant, and a specific unit that specifies the evaluation result of the second - type evaluation item such that the comprehensive risk is equal to or less than a predetermined allowable risk.

[0014] With this configuration, even before implant placement, it is possible to obtain the evaluation results of the Type 2 evaluation items that are acceptable for reducing the overall risk after implant placement to a predetermined acceptable risk or less, based on the evaluation results of the Type 1 evaluation items that consist of evaluation items other than the evaluation items based on the implant condition. This allows the user to obtain information that can be used as a reference for determining whether or not to implement the implant and for selecting an implant product.

[0015] The peri-implant disease advance prediction device may further include a provisional risk determiner that determines a provisional risk of peri-implant disease based on the evaluation results of the first evaluation items.

[0016] The peri-implant disease prediction device may further include an advice acquisition unit that refers to a database in which advice associated with provisional risks is stored and acquires advice according to the provisional risk determined by the provisional risk determination unit.

[0017] This configuration can assist dental care workers in determining treatment plans and facilitate smooth communication between dental care workers and patients.

[0018] The peri-implant disease prediction device may further include a product information acquisition unit that refers to a database in which information about implant products is stored and acquires the information about the implant products.

[0019] This configuration can assist in selecting an appropriate implant product.

[0020] The first type of evaluation item may include one or more evaluation items selected from the group consisting of a history of periodontitis, the rate of bleeding on probing, the number of sites with a probing depth of 5 mm or more, the ratio of bone resorption to age, susceptibility to periodontitis, and the frequency of SPT, and the second type of evaluation item may include one or more evaluation items selected from the group consisting of the distance from the superstructure margin to the bone and prosthetic factors.

[0021] The program according to an embodiment of the present invention is a program for causing a computer to function as the above-described implant surrounding disease prediction device.

[0022] Hereinafter, embodiments of the present invention will be described in detail with reference to the drawings. The same or corresponding parts in the drawings are denoted by the same reference numerals and their description will not be repeated. The dimensional ratios between the constituent members shown in each drawing do not necessarily represent the actual dimensional ratios.

[0023] [Hardware Configuration] FIG. 1 is a diagram schematically showing an example of the hardware configuration of an implant surrounding disease prediction device 1 (hereinafter referred to as "prediction device 1") according to an embodiment of the present invention. The prediction device 1 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 11, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 12, an auxiliary storage device 13, a display device 14, an input device 15, and a communication interface 16.

[0024] The CPU 11 executes the program loaded into the RAM 12. The RAM 12 is the main memory of the prediction device 1. Various programs stored in the auxiliary storage device 13 are loaded into the RAM 12.

[0025] The display device 14 displays the execution result of the program by the CPU 11. The input device 15 is a device for inputting data to the prediction device 1, and for example, a mouse, a keyboard, a touch panel, or the like. The input device 15 may be a voice input device (microphone).

[0026] Instead of displaying the execution result on the display device 14, the prediction device 1 may transmit data to other computers or the like through the communication interface 16. The prediction device 1 may also receive data from other computers or the like through the communication interface 16 instead of the input from the input device 15.

[0027] The prediction device 1 may be configured to cause a general-purpose computer to execute a predetermined program, thereby enabling the computer to function as a device for predicting peri-implant diseases. In this case, the general-purpose computer may be a mobile device such as a smartphone.

[0028] [Functional Configuration] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the functional configuration of the prediction device 1. The prediction device 1 includes an evaluation acquisition unit 21, a provisional risk determination unit 22, a comprehensive risk determination unit 23, a specification unit 24, an advice acquisition unit 25, and a product information acquisition unit 26. In FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 described later, the flow of information (data) between the respective constituent members is schematically shown by arrows.

[0029] The prediction device 1 is used to assist a dental healthcare provider (e.g., a dentist or a dental hygienist) in performing a risk assessment of peri-implant diseases. The risk assessment of peri-implant diseases is usually performed based on the evaluation results of evaluation items based on the implant state and the evaluation results of evaluation items other than those based on the implant state. In the present embodiment, among the risk assessment items of peri-implant diseases, the evaluation items other than those based on the implant state are referred to as "Type 1 evaluation items", and the evaluation items based on the implant state are referred to as "Type 2 evaluation items".

[0030] The evaluation acquisition unit 21 receives the evaluation results of the Type 1 evaluation items. For example, a message prompting the input of the evaluation results of the Type 1 evaluation items is displayed on the display device 14 (FIG. 1), and the data input by the user (dental healthcare provider or patient) is acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21.

[0031] The provisional risk determination unit 22 determines a provisional risk of peri-implant diseases (hereinafter referred to as "provisional risk") based on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items. In principle, in order to determine the risk of peri-implant diseases (hereinafter referred to as "comprehensive risk" for distinction from the provisional risk), the evaluation results of both the first type of evaluation items and the second type of evaluation items are required. However, here, a provisional risk based only on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21 is determined. A specific example of the method for determining the provisional risk will be described later.

[0032] The comprehensive risk determination unit 23 determines the comprehensive risk based on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items and the second type of evaluation items. A specific example of the method for determining the comprehensive risk will be described later.

[0033] The specifying unit 24 specifies the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items such that the comprehensive risk is equal to or less than a predetermined allowable risk. That is, the specifying unit 24 lists up the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items (hereinafter referred to as "evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items that are allowed") that can make the comprehensive risk equal to or less than the allowable risk, taking the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21 as given.

[0034] FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing an example of the configuration of the specifying unit 24. The specifying unit 24 includes an evaluation generation unit 241 and a determination unit 242. The evaluation generation unit 241 generates hypothetical evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items and passes these hypothetical evaluation results to the comprehensive risk determination unit 23. The comprehensive risk determination unit 23 determines the comprehensive risk based on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21 and the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items generated by the evaluation generation unit 241, and passes the determined comprehensive risk to the determination unit 242. The determination unit 242 determines whether the comprehensive risk determined by the comprehensive risk determination unit 23 is equal to or less than the allowable risk. If the comprehensive risk is equal to or less than the allowable risk, the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items generated by the evaluation generation unit 241 are regarded as one of the "evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items that are allowed".

[0035] The specific unit 24 repeats the generation of the hypothetical evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item by the evaluation generation unit 241 until at least one "acceptable evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item" is found. The specific unit 24 preferably repeats the generation of the hypothetical evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item by the evaluation generation unit 241 so as to cover all combinations of "acceptable evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item".

[0036] The configuration of the specific unit 24 described with reference to FIG. 3 is merely an example, and the configuration of the specific unit 24 is not limited thereto. For example, the specific unit 24 may refer to a database storing combinations of evaluation results of the first type of evaluation item and corresponding combinations of "acceptable evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item" to specify the "acceptable evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item". Alternatively, the "acceptable evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item" may be specified by a decision tree that branches according to the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation item. In any case, it is preferable that all combinations of "acceptable evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item" can be covered.

[0037] The prediction device 1 may display the provisional risk determined by the provisional risk determination unit 22 and the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item (the "acceptable evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item") specified by the specific unit 24 on the display device 14 (FIG. 1). Alternatively, the prediction device 1 may transmit the provisional risk and the "acceptable evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item" to another computer or the like via the communication interface 16 (FIG. 1). Note that when there is no "evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item such that the overall risk is equal to or less than a predetermined acceptable risk", it may be displayed or transmitted to that effect.

[0038] The advice acquisition unit 25 refers to the advice database 251 and acquires advice corresponding to the provisional risk determined by the provisional risk determination unit 22. The advice database 251 stores advice associated with the provisional risk. The prediction device 1 may display the advice acquired by the advice acquisition unit 25 on the display device 14 or transmit it to another computer or the like via the communication interface 16.

[0039] In addition to the above, it is preferable that the advice database 251 stores advice associated with the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items and the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items. In this case, it is preferable that the advice acquisition unit 25 acquires advice according to the evaluation result of the first type of evaluation item acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21 or the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item specified by the specifying unit 24. These advices can also be displayed on the display device 14 or transmitted to other computers or the like by the communication interface 16.

[0040] Also, it is preferable to store a plurality of types of advice such as for dental medical workers and patients in the advice database 251 so that the advice acquisition unit 25 acquires a plurality of types of advice.

[0041] The product information acquisition unit 26 refers to the implant product database 261 and acquires information on implant products. The implant product database 261 stores information on implant products. The prediction device 1 may display the information on implant products acquired by the product information acquisition unit 26 on the display device 14 or transmit it to other computers or the like by the communication interface 16.

[0042] In the implant product database 261, as information on implant products, for example, for each implant manufacturer, advice on the proper use of implant products within the product lineup and the like is stored.

[0043] The implant product database 261 may store information on implant products in association with at least one of a provisional risk, an evaluation result of a first type of evaluation item, and an evaluation result of a second type of evaluation item. In this case, the product information acquisition unit 26 may acquire information on implant products according to the provisional risk determined by the provisional risk determination unit 22, the evaluation result of the first type of evaluation item acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21, or the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item identified by the identification unit 24. In particular, it is preferable that information on implant products is stored in the implant product database 261 in association with the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item, and the product information acquisition unit 26 acquires information on implant products according to the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item identified by the identification unit 24.

[0044] Also, it is preferable to store multiple types of product information such as for dental healthcare workers and patients in the implant product database 261, and have the product information acquisition unit 26 acquire the multiple types of product information.

[0045] The advice database 251 and the implant product database 261 may not exist inside the prediction device 1. The prediction device 1 may refer to a database on another computer through the communication interface 16.

[0046] [Example of Predicting Peri-implant Diseases Using the Prediction Device 1] Hereinafter, an example of predicting peri-implant diseases using the prediction device 1 will be described in more detail. The prediction of peri-implant diseases using the prediction device 1 is not limited to this example.

[0047] [Overview of IDRA] In the following description, as a method for determining the overall risk by the overall risk determination unit 23, a case will be described where the risk assessment method for peri-implant diseases (Implant Disease Risk Assessment, hereinafter referred to as "IDRA") described in Non-Patent Document 2 is used. The following description is merely illustrative and does not limit the method for determining the overall risk by the overall risk determination unit 23. The overall risk determination unit 23 may be any unit that determines the overall risk of peri-implant diseases based on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items and the second type of evaluation items.

[0048] In IDRA, based on the evaluation results of eight evaluation items: (1) history of periodontitis, (2) proportion of bleeding on probing (BOP), (3) number of sites with a probing depth (PD) of 5 mm or more, (4) ratio of bone resorption to age, (5) susceptibility to periodontitis, (6) frequency of Supportive Periodontal Treatment (SPT), (7) distance from the superstructure margin to the bone, and (8) prosthetic factors, the overall risk of peri-implant diseases is determined. Among the above eight evaluation items, (1) to (6) are evaluation items other than those based on the implant state, that is, the first type of evaluation items, and (7) and (8) are evaluation items based on the implant state, that is, the second type of evaluation items.

[0049] Figures 4 and 5 are diagrams for explaining IDRA. In IDRA, first, as described below, the evaluation results of each of the above evaluation items (1) to (8) are classified into "high risk", "medium risk", or "low risk" (see Figure 4. For "(1) history of periodontitis", it is classified into "high risk" or "low risk"). In Figure 4, the areas of "high risk", "medium risk", or "low risk" are indicated by different hatchings.

[0050] (1) History of periodontitis If there is no history of periodontitis, it is classified as "low risk", and if there is a history of periodontitis, it is classified as "high risk".

[0051] (2) Proportion of BOP If the BOP is 9% or less, it is classified as "low risk"; if the BOP is more than 9% and 25% or less, it is classified as "medium risk"; if the BOP is more than 25%, it is classified as "high risk" (in Figure 4, in addition to the positions of "9" and "25" for the BOP, scale marks are also provided at the positions of "36" and "≧50", but this is not intended to classify into six levels with these as boundaries. The same applies to the following evaluation items.).

[0052] (3) Number of sites where PD is 5 mm or more If the number of sites where PD is 5 mm or more is 2 sites or less, it is classified as "low risk"; if it is 3 sites or more and 6 sites or less, it is classified as "medium risk"; if it is 7 sites or more, it is classified as "high risk".

[0053] (4) Ratio of bone resorption to age If the value obtained by dividing bone loss by age (BL / Age) is 0.5 or less, it is classified as "low risk"; if it is more than 0.5 and 1.0 or less, it is classified as "medium risk"; if it is more than 1.0, it is classified as "high risk".

[0054] (5) Susceptibility to periodontitis If the diagnosis result of periodontal disease ("stage / grade") is "1A", it is classified as "low risk"; if it is "2A", "2B", "3A", or "3B", it is classified as "medium risk"; if it is "3C" or stage 4, it is classified as "high risk".

[0055] (6) Frequency of SPT If the frequency of SPT is as scheduled (Compliant), it is classified as "low risk"; if it is once or more per six months, it is classified as "medium risk"; if it is less than that, it is classified as "high risk".

[0056] (7) Distance from the superstructure margin to the bone For soft tissue level implant (STL), it is classified as "low risk"; for bone level implant, if the distance from the superstructure margin to the bone is 1.5 mm or more, it is classified as "medium risk"; if it is less than 1.5 mm, it is classified as "high risk".

[0057] (8) Filling factor Good cleanability, good fit, and a supramucosal margin. If there is no excess cement, it is "low risk"; if the fit is poor but it has a supramucosal margin, it is "medium risk"; if the fit is poor and it has a submucosal margin, there is excess cement, or it has poor cleanability (Not cleanable), it is classified as "high risk".

[0058] In IDRA, based on the evaluation results of the above 8 items, the overall risk of peri-implant diseases is determined as follows.

[0059] If all 8 items are "low risk" or only 1 item is "medium risk" (see Fig. 5(a)), the overall risk is determined as "low risk".

[0060] If there are 2 or more "medium risk" items and 1 or fewer "high risk" items (see Fig. 5(b)), the overall risk is determined as "medium risk". If there is only 1 "high risk" item and the rest are all "low risk", the overall risk is also determined as "medium risk".

[0061] If there are 2 or more "high risk" items (see Fig. 5(c)), the overall risk is determined as "high risk".

[0062] Fig. 6 is a flowchart showing an example of the pre-prediction of peri-implant diseases using the prediction device 1. The steps in Fig. 6 are roughly divided into a data collection phase (step S1), a risk determination phase (step S2), and an output file determination phase (step S3).

[0063] [Data collection phase] In the data collection phase (step S1), data necessary for the prior prediction of peri-implant diseases by the prediction device 1 is collected. More specifically, among the evaluation items of the IDRA described above, data related to the first type of evaluation items (that is, data related to evaluation items (1) to (6)) is collected. The collected data is input into the prediction device 1 by, for example, the input device 15 (Fig. 1). The evaluation acquisition unit 21 (Fig. 2) acquires the input data as the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items.

[0064] The data collected here (the data input into the prediction device 1) does not necessarily have to be the evaluation results themselves of the IDRA evaluation items (1) to (6). For example, for “(4) Ratio of bone resorption to age”, if the age and the value of bone resorption are known, it can be calculated from these. Also, “(2) Proportion of BOP” and “(3) Number of sites with PD of 5 mm or more” can be calculated from the periodontal tissue examination results if the periodontal tissue examination results are available. That is, the data collected in the data collection phase (step S1) may be any data from which evaluation items (1) to (6) can be calculated. The “evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items” acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21 shall also include such data calculated from the input data.

[0065] Also, “(5) Susceptibility to periodontitis” among the evaluation items of the IDRA is obtained as a result of the diagnosis of periodontal disease. Therefore, in the data collection phase (step S1), it is preferable to perform the diagnosis of periodontal disease together. The evaluation items used for the diagnosis of periodontal disease partially overlap with the evaluation items of the IDRA, such as “Proportion of BOP” and “Number of sites with PD of 5 mm or more”. Therefore, by performing the diagnosis of periodontal disease together, data can be collected more efficiently. However, the evaluation result of “(5) Susceptibility to periodontitis” may be directly input without performing the diagnosis of periodontal disease.

[0066] The data collection phase (step S1) specifically includes a step of acquiring data (step S1-1), a step of diagnosing periodontal disease (step S1-2), and a step of acquiring data again (step S1-3). As described above, the step of diagnosing periodontal disease (step S1-2) is an optional step.

[0067] When performing the step of diagnosing periodontal disease (step S1-2), first, in the step of acquiring data (step S1-1), data necessary for the step of diagnosing periodontal disease (step S1-2) is acquired. For example, a question is displayed on the display device 14 (FIG. 1) to prompt the user to input an answer. As specific modes, a dental healthcare worker conducts an interview survey with a patient and inputs the result, the patient himself / herself inputs data, a dental healthcare worker inputs data from periodontal tissue examination results, etc. can be considered. FIG. 7 is an example of a screen displayed on the display device 14 in the step of acquiring data (step S1-1).

[0068] Based on the data acquired in step S1-1, periodontal disease is diagnosed (step S1-2). "Diagnosis" here means evaluating the progression of periodontal disease based on the evaluation results (such as BOP) obtained as a result of the examination act, and it is not essential to perform the examination act itself. The diagnosis of periodontal disease can be performed, for example, by the method described in Non-Patent Document 3.

[0069] When the step of diagnosing periodontal disease (step S1-2) is completed, the evaluation results of evaluation items (2) to (5) are already known. Therefore, in the step of acquiring data again (step S1-3), data regarding "(1) History of periodontitis" and "(6) Frequency of SPT" is acquired.

[0070] In addition, when not performing the step of diagnosing periodontal disease (step S1-2) in the data collection phase (step S1), in the step of acquiring data (step S1-1), the evaluation result of "(5) Sensitivity to periodontitis" may be directly input.

[0071] [Risk determination phase] In the risk determination phase (step S2), a step (step S2-1) of determining a provisional risk is performed by the provisional risk determination unit 22 (FIG. 2).

[0072] Here, as an example of the method for determining the provisional risk, a method of determining the risk of the most risky evaluation item among the six evaluation items as the provisional risk is adopted. That is, similar to IDRA, each of the evaluation items (1) to (6) is classified into "low risk", "medium risk", or "high risk" (see FIG. 8), and the risk of the most risky evaluation item among them is set as the provisional risk. FIG. 9(a) is an example where the provisional risk determined by this method is "low risk" (all items are low risk), FIG. 9(b) is an example where it is "medium risk" (one or more items are medium risk), and FIG. 9(c) is an example where it is "high risk" (one or more items are high risk).

[0073] FIG. 10 is a table showing the relationship between the provisional risk and the comprehensive risk determined by this method. The comprehensive risk in FIG. 10 assumes the case where the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items ("(7) Distance from the superstructure margin to the bone" and "(8) Prosthetic factor") are both "low risk".

[0074] This method for determining the provisional risk is merely an example and does not limit the method for determining the provisional risk by the provisional risk determination unit 22. The provisional risk determination unit 22 may determine the provisional risk of peri-implant diseases based on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items.

[0075] [Output file determination phase] In the output file determination phase (step S3), (A) advice regarding the provisional risk, (B) individual advice for each of the evaluation items (1) to (6), and (C) individual advice for each of the evaluation items (7) and (8) are prepared for dental healthcare providers and patients, respectively. Further, (D) information on the implant product is prepared for dental healthcare providers and patients.

[0076] First, the specific part 24 (Fig. 2) specifies the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items (specifically, evaluation items (7) and (8).) such that the overall risk is equal to or lower than a predetermined allowable risk (step S3-1). Here, it is preferable that the allowable risk can be changed by the user.

[0077] For example, when all of the evaluation items (1) to (6) are "low risk" (the tentative risk is "low risk"), in order to make the overall risk after implant placement "low risk" (the allowable risk is "low risk"), the combination of "evaluation result of evaluation item (7) · evaluation result of evaluation item (8)" must be one of "low risk · low risk", "low risk · medium risk", or "medium risk · low risk".

[0078] On the other hand, even when all of the evaluation items (1) to (6) are "low risk", if the overall risk after implant placement can be allowed to be "medium risk" (the allowable risk is "medium risk"), the combination of "evaluation result of evaluation item (7) · evaluation result of evaluation item (8)" only needs to be other than "high risk · high risk".

[0079] Also, when only one of the evaluation items (1) to (6) is "high risk" and the remaining items are "medium risk" or lower (the tentative risk is "high risk"), in order to make the overall risk after implant placement "medium risk" (the allowable risk is "medium risk"), the combination of "evaluation result of evaluation item (7) · evaluation result of evaluation item (8)" must be one of "low risk · low risk", "low risk · medium risk", "medium risk · low risk", or "medium risk · medium risk".

[0080] Thus, the allowable combination of "evaluation result of evaluation item (7) · evaluation result of evaluation item (8)" differs depending on the evaluation results of evaluation items (1) to (6) and the allowable risk. The specific part 24 (Fig. 2) specifies the allowable combination of "evaluation result of evaluation item (7) · evaluation result of evaluation item (8)" based on the evaluation results of evaluation items (1) to (6) acquired by the evaluation acquisition part 21 (Fig. 2) and the allowable risk.

[0081] Next, the advice acquisition unit 25 (Fig. 2) acquires the advice in (A) to (C) above (step S3-2). The advice acquisition unit 25 refers to the advice database 251 (Fig. 2) and acquires advice corresponding to the provisional risk determined by the provisional risk determination unit 22 (Fig. 2). The advice acquisition unit 25 further acquires advice corresponding to the evaluation results of each of the evaluation items (1) to (6) acquired by the evaluation acquisition unit 21, and advice corresponding to the evaluation results of each of the evaluation items (7) and (8) specified by the specifying unit 24. These advices are acquired for dental care practitioners and patients, respectively.

[0082] Subsequently, the product information acquisition unit 26 (Fig. 2) acquires the product information in (D) above (step S3-3). The product information acquisition unit 26 refers to the implant product database 261 (Fig. 2) and acquires information on implant products (step S3-3). Product information is also acquired for dental care practitioners and patients.

[0083] The order of performing steps S3-1 to S3-3 is not limited to this. Among the acquisition of advice by the advice acquisition unit 25 (step S3-2), the acquisition of advice corresponding to the evaluation results of each of the evaluation items (7) and (8) can only be performed after step S3-1, but the rest can be performed at any timing. Also, the acquisition of advice corresponding to the evaluation results of each of the evaluation items (7) and (8) can be performed at any timing as long as it is after step S3-1. The same applies to the acquisition of product information by the product information acquisition unit 26.

[0084] Thus, the advice in (A) to (C) above and the product information in (D) above are prepared. The prediction device 1 can, for example, display the advice and product information prepared here on the display device 14 (Fig. 1) or transmit them to other computers or the like through the communication interface 16 (Fig. 1).

[0085] According to the present embodiment, even before implant placement, based on the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation items consisting of evaluation items other than the evaluation items based on the state of the implant, the overall risk after implant placement can be determined to be within a predetermined allowable risk. The evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items that are allowed can be obtained.

[0086] In order to reduce the overall risk after implant placement, it is preferable to minimize the risks associated with the second type of evaluation items ( "(7) Distance from the superstructure margin to the bone" and "(8) Prosthetic factor)". However, depending on the location where the implant is to be placed, the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items may be restricted. Also, the evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items affect the aesthetics and prosthetic form of the implant. The evaluation results of the second type of evaluation items identified by the specific part 24 can be used as a reference for determining the appropriateness of implant implementation and for selecting implant products.

[0087] In addition, by the advice acquisition unit 25 acquiring advice according to the tentative risk or the like, it is possible to support the determination of the treatment policy by dental medical staff and to smooth the communication between the dental medical staff and the patient.

[0088] In addition, by the product information acquisition unit 26 acquiring information on implant products, it is possible to support the selection of appropriate implant products.

[0089] The embodiments of the present invention have been described above, but the above-described embodiments are merely examples for implementing the present invention. Therefore, the present invention is not limited to the above-described embodiments, and it is possible to appropriately modify and implement the above-described embodiments without departing from the spirit thereof.

[0090] The above describes in detail the use of IDRA as a risk assessment method for peri-implant disease. However, as mentioned above, this is merely an example. The first-type evaluation items may include evaluation items other than IDRA evaluation items (1) to (6), and may not include some or all of IDRA evaluation items (1) to (6). The second-type evaluation items may also include evaluation items other than IDRA evaluation items (7) and (8), and may not include some or all of IDRA evaluation items (7) and (8). Furthermore, the methods for determining the overall risk and the provisional risk are not limited to the above examples, and various methods that are considered reasonable can be used. [Explanation of symbols]

[0091] 1. Prediction device for peri-implant diseases (prediction device) 11 CPU 12 RAM 13 Auxiliary storage device 14 Display device 15 Input Devices 16 Communication Interface 21 Evaluation Acquisition Department 22 Interim Risk Determination Unit 23. Comprehensive Risk Decision Department 24 Specific part 241 Evaluation Generation Unit 242 Judgment section 25 Advice Acquisition Department 251 Advice Database 26 Product Information Acquisition Department 261 Implant Product Database

Claims

1. An evaluation acquisition unit that receives an evaluation result of a first type of evaluation item, which is one or more evaluation items other than the evaluation items based on the state of the implant, among the risk evaluation items for peri-implant diseases; Based on the evaluation result of the first type of evaluation item and the evaluation result of a second type of evaluation item, which is one or more evaluation items based on the state of the implant, among the risk evaluation items for peri-implant diseases, a comprehensive risk determination unit that determines the comprehensive risk of peri-implant diseases; A specifying unit that specifies a combination of evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item such that the comprehensive risk is equal to or less than a predetermined allowable risk, The specifying unit includes: An evaluation generation unit that generates a combination of assumed evaluation results of the second type of evaluation item and passes the combination of the assumed evaluation results to the comprehensive risk determination unit; A determination unit that determines whether the comprehensive risk determined by the comprehensive risk determination unit is equal to or less than the allowable risk, If the comprehensive risk is equal to or less than the allowable risk, the assumed evaluation result generated by the evaluation generation unit is set as the evaluation result of the second type of evaluation item that is allowed; Each of the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation item and the second type of evaluation item is classified into low risk, medium risk, and high risk, or low risk and high risk; The comprehensive risk determination unit: Determines that the comprehensive risk is low risk if all of the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation item and the second type of evaluation item are low risk, or if only one item is medium risk; Determines that the comprehensive risk is medium risk if there are two or more medium risks and one or less high risks in the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation item and the second type of evaluation item, or if there is only one high risk and the rest are all low risks; A pre-predictive device for peri-implant diseases that determines that the comprehensive risk is high risk if there are two or more high risks in the evaluation results of the first type of evaluation item and the second type of evaluation item.

2. The pre-predictive device for peri-implant diseases according to Claim 1, further comprising: A provisional risk determination unit that determines a provisional risk of peri-implant diseases based on the evaluation result of the first type of evaluation item; The provisional risk determination unit sets the risk of the most risky evaluation item among the first type of evaluation items as the provisional risk. A pre-predictive device for peri-implant diseases.

3. The pre-predictive device for peri-implant diseases according to Claim 2, An implant peri-disease pre-prediction device further comprising an advice acquisition unit that refers to a database storing advice associated with the provisional risk and acquires advice corresponding to the provisional risk determined by the provisional risk determination unit.

4. The implant peri-disease pre-prediction device according to any one of Claims 1 to 3, An implant peri-disease pre-prediction device further comprising a product information acquisition unit that refers to a database storing information on implant products and acquires information on implant products.

5. The implant peri-disease pre-prediction device according to any one of Claims 1 to 4, The first type of evaluation item includes one or more evaluation items selected from the group consisting of a history of periodontitis, the proportion of bleeding on probing, the number of sites with a probing depth of 5 mm or more, the ratio of bone resorption to age, susceptibility to periodontitis, and the frequency of SPT. The second type of evaluation item includes one or more evaluation items selected from the group consisting of the distance from the superstructure margin to the bone and prosthetic factors, an implant peri-disease pre-prediction device.

6. A program for causing a computer to function as the implant peri-disease pre-prediction device according to any one of Claims 1 to 5.

Images