Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant variables around short dental implants in type 2 diabetic, prediabetic, and non‐diabetic patients

Mokeem, Sameer A; Alfadda, Sara A.; Al‐Shibani, Nouf; Alrabiah, Mohammed; Al-Hamdan, Rana S; Vohra, Fahim; Abduljabbar, Tariq

doi:10.1111/cid.12691

Cited by 24 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The reported results support previous studies [ 10 – 12 , 31 ] in which an impaired glycemic status (manifested prediabetic and type 2 diabetic patients with chronic hyperglycemia) was described as a significant risk factor of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. It is noteworthy that the depth of probing and crestal bone resorption on the mesiodistal surfaces of NDIs was nearly 10 times higher in type 2 diabetic patients with chronic hyperglycemia in relation to diabetic patients with optimal glycemic control and non-diabetic individuals.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison of peri-implant soft tissue and crestal bone status of dental implants placed in prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Clinicoradiographic status of narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) among patients with prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) is scarce. The aim was to address the clinicoradiographic status of NDIs placed prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals. In this retrospective cohort study, patients having undergone oral rehabilitation with NDI were included. The participants were divided into the following: (a) patients with prediabetes; (b) patients with poorly controlled type 2 DM; (c) patients with well-controlled type 2 DM; and (d) normoglycemic individuals. Demographic data was collected. In all groups, peri-implant plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), and mesiodistal CBL were measured in all groups. Information related to implant dimensions, surface characteristics, insertion torque, implant geometry, duration of NDI in function, and jaw location of NDI was also recorded. Data normality was assessed and group comparisons were performed. A probability value under 0.01 was considered statistically significant. Results Eighty-three patients (20 patients had prediabetes, 22 with poorly controlled type 2 DM, 20 with well-controlled type 2 DM, and 20 self-reported non-diabetic individuals) were included. The mean HbA1c levels were significantly higher among patients with prediabetes (P < 0.01) and poorly controlled type 2 DM (P < 0.01) than patients with well-controlled type 2 DM and non-diabetic controls. Peri-implant PI, GI, PD, and mesiodistal CBL levels were significantly higher among patients with pre-diabetes (P < 0.01) and poorly controlled type 2 DM (P < 0.01) than patients with well-controlled type 2 DM and non-diabetic controls. Peri-implant PI, GI, PD, and mesiodistal CBL levels were significantly higher among patients with poorly controlled type 2 DM (P < 0.01) than patients with prediabetes. Conclusion Chronic hyperglycemia increases the risk of peri-implant diseases around NDIs.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison of peri-implant soft tissue and crestal bone status of dental implants placed in prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals: a retrospective cohort study

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the increase in bone loss for the diabetic group remained statistically significant after adjusting for HbA1c, lipids as well as BMI (P<0.05) indicating other pathways than inflammation may be involved which needs further clarification. 45 Moreover, although there is currently very limited evidence on the impact of smoking and peri-implant disease in diabetes patients, preliminary data suggests that smoking does not exacerbate peri-implantitis in diabetes. 30…”

Section: Diabetes Comorbidities and Peri-implant Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Quality of Glycemic Control Guide Dental Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetes? Focus on: Peri-Implant Diseases

Aldahlawi¹,

Nourah²,

Andreana³

2021

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Traditionally patients with metabolic conditions such as diabetes mellitus are considered not suitable candidates for dental implant therapy due to increased risk of infection, impaired bone healing or the potential for vascular complications. Periimplantitis as the more progressive form of peri-implant disease involves bone loss and estimated to occur in nearly half of all implant cases long-term. Despite extensive research on association of hyperglycemia with dental implants in preclinical and animal models, translational effort to clinical practice is hampered by discrepancies in reported outcome indicators for peri-implantitis in patients with a spectrum of glycemic profiles. This review aims to evaluate clinical evidence for peri-implant disease in metabolically compromised patients and in particular in patients with poorly-controlled diabetes in order to inform clinical management of peri-implant disease. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed utilizing PubMed database and using the key word 'diabetes' combined with "dental implant" or "Periimplantitis" or/and "Preimplant disease". Results: Clinical studies with follow up more than 1year, systematic review and metaanalysis that evaluated peri-implant disease in diabetic patients in relation to glycemic control were taken into consideration in this review. Conclusion:Studies reported conflicting results regarding the long-term effect of diabetes on peri-implant health regardless of the level glycemic control. Therefore, interpretation of finding and relevance to clinical practise should be considered on individual bases.

show abstract

“…For instance, several studies indicate that placement of dental implants in uncontrolled type‐2 diabetes mellitus may lead to dental implant failure . The establishment of normal glycemic levels can be regarded as a hallmark for long‐term dental implant survival . Similarly, there is a growing body of evidence that obesity may interfere in dental implant stability.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical, radiographic, and restorative peri‐implant measurements of narrow and standard diameter implants in obese and nonobese patients: A 3‐year retrospective follow‐up study

Alshiddi

Alsahhaf

Alshagroud

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is dearth of studies assessing clinical, restorative, and radiographic peri-implant outcomes around narrow diameter implants (NDIs) and standard diameter implants (SDIs) in obese and nonobese subjects.Objective: To assess clinical, restorative, and radiographic parameters of NDIs and SDIs placed in obese and nonobese individuals. Materials and Methods: Obese and nonobese patients requiring NDIs and SDIs in the anterior maxilla/mandible were included. Based on the implant diameter, participants were further divided into two subgroups: (a) NDIs (3.3 mm) and (b) SDIs (4.1 mm). Peri-implant clinical measurements including plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and radiographic crestal bone loss (CBL) were evaluated around NDIs and SDIs at 1 and 3-year follow-up.Results: A total of 70 patients (35 obese and 35 nonobese) were included. Only BOP showed statistically significant differences between both the groups at patient level at 1 and 3-year follow-up (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in PI and PD around NDIs and SDIs between obese and nonobase patients. Statistical significant differences were observed in the total CBL around NDIs and RDIs among obese and nonbase subjects at 3 year follow-up (P < .05).Conclusion: Both NDIs and SDIs show consistent clinical stability among obese and nonobase patients. Higher amount of bone loss was observed in obese patients compared to nonobase patients despite regular hygiene maintenance. K E Y W O R D Screstal bone loss, narrow implants, obesity, standard-diameter implants

show abstract

Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant variables around short dental implants in type 2 diabetic, prediabetic, and non‐diabetic patients

Cited by 24 publications

References 31 publications

Comparison of peri-implant soft tissue and crestal bone status of dental implants placed in prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals: a retrospective cohort study

Comparison of peri-implant soft tissue and crestal bone status of dental implants placed in prediabetic, type 2 diabetic, and non-diabetic individuals: a retrospective cohort study

Should Quality of Glycemic Control Guide Dental Implant Therapy in Patients with Diabetes? Focus on: Peri-Implant Diseases

Clinical, radiographic, and restorative peri‐implant measurements of narrow and standard diameter implants in obese and nonobese patients: A 3‐year retrospective follow‐up study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About