Comparison of clinical and radiographic peri‐implant parameters among obese and non‐obese patients: A 5‐year study

Self Cite

Background Clinical and radiographic status around short dental implants in patients with different glycemic levels remains unexplored. Purpose To determine the clinical and radiographic bone level (RBL) around short dental implants in type‐2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), prediabetic, and non‐diabetic patients. Materials and Methods Participants were grouped into three groups based on HbA1c levels: T2DM (Group‐1); prediabetic patients (Group‐2); and non‐diabetic subjects (Group‐3). Clinical recordings included the assessment of peri‐implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD). Radiographic analysis included evaluation of standardized periapical digital radiographs using specialized software and image analyzer. Results Clinical peri‐implant parameters including PI and BOP were statistically significantly higher in group‐1 (P < .01) and group 2 (P < .05) as compared to group‐3. Mean PD was statistically significantly higher in group‐1 patients compared to group‐3 (P < .01). Radiographic bone loss was significantly higher in both group‐1 (P < .01) and group‐2 (P < .05) patients as compared to patients in group 3. RBL showed statistically significant difference among T2DM patients even after adjusting for HbA1c, total cholesterol, and body mass index (P < .05) and statistically significant difference in prediabetic patients after adjusting for only HbA1c (P < .05). Conclusion Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant parameters are compromised around short dental implants in type‐2 diabetes mellitus patients. Further longitudinal studies are needed to compare clinical performance of short dental implants with standard dental implants placed in patients with different glycemic level.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mokeem

Alfadda

Al‐Shibani

et al. 2018

Self Cite

“…In addition, the patients included in T2DM group presented some kind of obesity. Recent research indicates that obesity may be a significant modifying risk factor for periodontal and peri‐implant inflammation and therefore, this may have affected the outcomes of the present results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Radiographic data were recorded by an expert and calibrated assessor. Radiographs were taken as described in our previous studies . The radiographs were standardized with the use of bite registration material and an aluminum step wedge of known density.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of clinical peri‐implant indices and crestal bone levels around narrow and regular diameter implants placed in diabetic and non‐diabetic patients: A 3‐year follow‐up study

Al‐Shibani

Al‐Aali

Al-Hamdan

et al. 2019

Background Studies evaluating and comparing clinical and radiographic peri‐implant indices around narrow diameter implants (NDIs; <3.3 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDIs) in type‐2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and non‐diabetic individuals are deficient. Objective To estimate and compare the clinical and radiographic indices around NDIs and RDIs placed in T2DM and non‐diabetic patients. Materials and Methods Eighty‐six patients requiring implant surgery in the posterior mandible were divided into two groups (42 T2DM and 44 non‐diabetic individuals). Patients were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of diameter of implants: (1) patients with NDIs (3.3 mm ø) and (2) patients with RDIs (4.1 mm ø). Clinical indices evaluating plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), and crestal bone levels (CBL) were recorded around all dental implants at 18 and 36 months follow up. Serum hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test was carried out for both groups to assess the profile of glycosylated hemoglobin at baseline, 18 and 36 months of follow up. Results The mean age of patients in T2DM group and non‐diabetic group was 45.2 and 41.6 years, respectively. At 18 and 36 months follow up, mean HbA1c levels were 6.5% and 4.5% and 6.7% and 4.5% in T2DM and non‐diabetic individuals, respectively. A statistically significant reduction in mean HbA1c levels from the baseline to respective follow‐up periods were seen in T2DM patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall mean scores of PI, BOP, PD, and CBL around NDIs and RDIs among T2DM and non‐diabetic patients at 18 and 36 months of follow up. Conclusion NDIs show reliable clinical stability and radiographic bone levels as RDIs placed in T2DM and non‐diabetic individuals, provided oral hygiene and glycemic status are strictly maintained.

“…These regular oral hygiene practice reflected stable clinical values over a period of 3 years. 29,42 The present study did not apply logistic regression analysis to preclude the effect of obesity on peri-implant outcomes. If remained untreated, may ultimately lead to worse radiographic scores.…”

Section: Marginal Bone Resorptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Alsahhaf

Alshiddi

Alshagroud

et al. 2019

Self Cite

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