Comparison of clinical and radiographic parameters around short (6 to 8 mm in length) and long (11 mm in length) dental implants placed in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus: 3‐year follow‐up results

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.

“…Similarly, these parameters were comparable in T2DM and prediabetes patients. These results are based on the findings proposed by previous studies …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

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

“…3 In order to circumvent these invasive surgical procedures, short implants, which are 6 to 8 mm in length were developed. 3,4 Clinical studies [3][4][5] have shown that short implants can exhibit clinical and radiographic stability in a manner similar to standard 10 mm long implants. Moreover, in a 14-year follow-up longitudinal clinical study, 6 the survival rates of standard-length and short dental implants were similar, 97.1% and 97.9%, respectively.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of peri‐implant clinical and radiographic status around short (6 mm in length) dental implants placed in cigarette‐smokers and never‐smokers: Six‐year follow‐up results

Abduljabbar

Al-Hamoudi

Al-Sowygh

et al. 2017

Background: It is hypothesized that peri-implant clinical and radiographic inflammatory parameters (probing depth [PD], bleeding on probing [BOP] and plaque index [PI]; and radiographic (crestal bone loss [CBL]) are worse among cigarette-smokers (CS) compared with never-smokers (NS) with short implants.Purpose: The present 6-year follow-up retrospective study compared the peri-implant clinical and radiographic parameters in CS and NS with short dental implants (6 mm in length). Materials and methods:Fifty-six male individuals were included. These individuals divided into 2 groups as follows: (a) Group-1: 29 self-reported systemically healthy CS with 48 short-implants; and (b) Group-2: 27 self-reported systemically healthy NS with 43 short implants. Peri-implant PD, PI, BOP, and CBL were measured. Group comparisons were done using the Kruskal-Wallis test and sample size was estimated. Level of significance was set at P values < .05. Results:In groups 1 and 2, the follow-up durations were 6.2 6 0.1 years and 6.1 6 0.3 years, respectively. A cigarette smoking history of 8.9 6 3.6 pack years was reported by individuals in Group-1. At follow-up, scores of peri-implant PD, BOP, PI, and mesial and distal CBL were comparable around short implants in both groups. Conclusion:Under strict oral hygiene maintenance protocols, short dental implants can remain functionally stable in CS in a manner similar to NS.

“…Nevertheless, when glycemic levels are strictly maintained (by medications and/or dietary control), dental implants can osseointegrate and remain functionally stable in diabetic subjects in a way comparable with systemically healthy individuals . There is abundant evidence in indexed literature that has shown that implants can demonstrate survival rates of 100% among patients with well‐controlled diabetes . It is therefore recommended that hyperglycemic patients, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes mellitus undergoing dental implant therapy should be encouraged to regularly monitor and maintain glycemic levels within normal ranges.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…24,25 There is abundant evidence in indexed literature that has shown that implants can demonstrate survival rates of 100% among patients with well-controlled diabetes. [25][26][27][28] It is therefore recommended that hyperglycemic patients, such as those with prediabetes and diabetes mellitus undergoing dental implant therapy should be encouraged to regularly monitor and maintain glycemic levels within normal ranges. This may help attain long-term stability of dental implants and improved overall health status in these individuals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival of adjacent‐dental‐implants in prediabetic and systemically healthy subjects at 5‐years follow‐up

Alrabiah

Alrahlah

Al-Hamdan

et al. 2019

Background Long‐term survival of adjacent dental implants (ADI) in prediabetic patients remained uninvestigated. Purpose This 5 years' follow‐up clinical study compared the survival of adjacent implants in prediabetic and nondiabetic subjects. Materials and Methods Prediabetic (group‐A) and nondiabetic (group‐B) subjects having undergone dental rehabilitation using ADI were assessed. Data about sex, age treatment and period (in years) since diagnosis of prediabetes, and family history of diabetes was gathered and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were recorded. Dental implant related data (dimensions, loading protocol, surface characteristics, restoration type, and duration in function) was recorded. Depth of probing (PD), bleeding‐on‐probing (BOP), and plaque index (PI) were measured and mesial and distal crestal bone loss (CBL) were recorded. P values less than .05 were contemplated as statistically‐significant. Results Seventy‐nine male individuals (39 in group‐A and 40 in group‐B) were included. Subjects in groups ‐A and ‐B were 54.3 ± 3.6 and 51.2 ± 2.4 years old, respectively. In group‐A, subjects were diagnosed with prediabetes 5.4 ± 0.2 years ago. Patients in group‐A more often had a family history of diabetes than group‐B. Thirty‐nine and 40 ADI were placed in patients in groups ‐A and ‐B, respectively. Tooth‐brushing once daily was reported by 79.5% and 82.5% individuals in groups ‐A and ‐B, respectively. Peri‐implant PI (P<.001), BOP (P<.001), PD (P<.001), mesial (P<.001), and distal (P<.001) CBL and HbA1c levels (P<.001) were higher in group‐A than group‐B. The implant survival rate in group‐A and group‐B was 100% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion Although ADI can survive in prediabetic patients in the long‐term; soft‐tissue inflammation and CBL are worse around adjacent implants in these patients compared with nondiabetic controls.