Clinical and radiographic indices around narrow diameter implants placed in different glycemic‐level patients

Abstract

Background: Studies assessing peri-implant clinical and marginal bone resorption (MBR) around narrow diameter implants (NDIs) placed in different glycemic levels are uninvestigated. Objective: The present 3-year retrospective follow-up investigation was designed to explore clinical and radiographic status of NDIs placed in individuals with different glycemic control levels. Materials and Methods: Patients with serum hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels ≥6.5% (Group-1), 5.7%-6.4% (Group-2), and 4.0%-5.0% (Group-3) were included. Clinical indices evaluating bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque scores (PI), peri-implant probing depth (PD), and MBR were recorded around NDIs at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up. Serum HbA1c test was carried out for all patients to assess the profile of glycosylated hemoglobin at 1 and 3 years of follow-up. Results: A significant reduction in mean HbA1c levels from year 1 to year 3 followup period was seen in Group-1 only. PI varied from 0.40 in Group 1 at 2 year and 0.42 at 3-year follow-up to 0.18 at 2-year (P = 0.032) and 0.17 at 3-year (P = 0.018) follow-up, respectively. Greater BOP was noted in Group 1 (0.53) as compared with Group 2 (0.42) and Group 3 (0.21) (P = 0.048) at 3-year follow-up. PD after 3 year ranged from 2.04 mm in Group 3 to 2.32 mm in Group 1 that showed statistically significant difference (P = 0.037). No statistical significant differences were observed in MBR at any time point between the groups. Conclusion: The results of this short-term follow-up study indicate that NDIs show clinical and radiographic stability, provided oral cleanliness and glycemic levels are relatively maintained. Further long-term clinical studies are needed to evaluate implant stability over the period along with controlled glycemic status. K E Y W O R D S crestal bone levels, hyperglycemia, narrow implants, radiographs

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

“…6 Other variables that may affect PS encompass implant dimensions (length and diameter), surface characteristics (moderately rough or smooth), and number of threads on the implant surface. 3,[7][8][9][10][11] With regard to implant diameter, studies [12][13][14][15] have shown that narrow-(<3.3 mm) and standard-(4.1 mm) diameter dental implants can remain functionally stable in smokers and medically compromised patient in a manner similar to systemically healthy nonsmokers. However, achievement of PS is often challenging when implants are placed in type-IV bone (soft bone), which usually comprises the posterior maxillae.…”

Impact of diabetes mellitus on the stabilization and osseointegration of dental implants: a systematic review

“…In contrast, ten studies found that implant failure was more frequent in non-diabetics but was not statistically significant (Alsaadi et al, 2008; Anner et al, 2010; Bell et al, 2011; Busenlechner et al, 2014; Doyle et al, 2007; Keller et al, 1999; Le et al, 2013; Levin et al, 2011; Oates et al, 2014; van Steenberghe et al, 2002). In addition, seven studies found that all diabetics and non-diabetics retained their implant during the study (Al Amri et al, 2016; Alsahhaf et al, 2019; Al□Shibani et al, 2019; Dowell et al, 2007; Erdogan et al, 2015; Gómez-Moreno et al, 2015; Sundar et al, 2019). In six studies that performed the resonance frequency analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between diabetics and non-diabetics (Al Zahrani & Al Mutairi, 2018; Erdogan et al, 2015; Ghiraldini et al, 2016; Oates et al, 2009, 2014; Sundar et al, 2019).…”

From Bench to Bedside in Precision Medicine: Diabetes Mellitus and Peri-Implantitis Clinical Indices with a Short-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…All the seven included studies were prospective clinical studies whose results were published between 2014 and 2021 and featured a maximum three-year follow-up period. The total number of patients with diabetes (DM) recruited for the included studies was 280, and 166 for the control group (Non-DM-patients without diabetes), with a maximum mean age for the study of Tatarakis et al (2014) [26] group DM 65 ± 8.9 (51-80) and minimum for the study of Alsahhaf et al [32] (2019) Non-DM group 43.4 (33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49). The total number of implants placed in the DM groups was 343 while for the Non-DM group it was 212.…”

“…The total number of implants placed in the DM groups was 343 while for the Non-DM group it was 212. The studies that report data for a follow-up period of only six months were three: 2019) [32].…”