Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group

Abstract

This study suggests that bruxism may significantly increase both the implant failure rate and the rate of mechanical and technical complications of implant-supported restorations. Other risk factors may also have influenced the results.

Retrospective clinical evaluation of 2‐ to 6‐unit implant‐supported fixed partial dentures: Mean follow‐up of 9 years

“…Bruxism was a factor that exerted a significant influence not only on the failure of the prostheses, but also on the prevalence of technical complications. Bruxism has been shown to significantly affect the implant failure and implant fracture rates negatively, as well as an increase prevalence of technical complications in implant‐supported restorations in comparison to patients not presenting bruxism . The condition is suggested to generate overload of prosthetic rehabilitations on implants, which could possibly cause implant fracture or peri‐implant marginal bone loss (MBL), ultimately resulting in implant failure .…”

“…For this study, the authors followed the definition of bruxism proposed by Lobbezoo et al: “Bruxism is a repetitive jaw‐muscle activity characterized by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible. Bruxism has two distinct circadian manifestations: it can occur during sleep (indicated as sleep bruxism) or during wakefulness (indicated as awake bruxism).” The sign and symptoms of bruxism were listed according to the International Classification of Sleep Disorders, following the same guidelines used in a recent study (the patients suspected to be bruxers, as diagnosed in the records, were recalled in this previous study in order to be clinically reassessed. Part of these patients—the ones with the type of prosthesis being evaluated here—is included in the present observational study).…”

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

“…The use of turned implants has been abandoned in several places , even though it still has its place in some countries and is considered as the ‘golden standard’ of comparison between implants of different surface treatments. It is also valid to incorporate a clear distinction of multiple confounding factors suggested to have some influence on the implant failure rates, such as smoking , bruxism and the history of periodontal disease , as the clinical outcome may vary when other factors are taken into consideration.…”

Factors influencing the fracture of dental implants

“…A parafunctional occlusal habit can contribute to the potential overload, as load magnitude, duration, frequency, and direction are increased by such activity. 3,17,18 Six of the eight fractured implants in the study of Balshi 19 well as for a higher prevalence of implant fracture. The study compared groups of bruxers and non-bruxers having the same number of patients (n 5 98) with the same total number of implants (n 5 427) equally distributed between them.…”