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

Abstract

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.

Effect of photobiomodulation after non‐surgical mechanical debridement on cortisol levels in the peri‐implant sulcular fluid among patients with peri‐implant mucositis

“…It is well established that an immunosuppressed systemic health (for instance un-controlled DM) is a risk factor for oral diseases including periodontitis and peri-implantitis. 29,[33][34][35] Similarly, habitual use of electronic nicotine delivery systems and combustible tobacco (such as cigarettes and waterpipe/narghile/shisha) is also directly linked with the prognosis and occurrence of periodontal and peri-implant diseases. [36][37][38][39][40][41] Therefore, strict inclusion criteria were used in the current investigation.…”

“…One reasoning for similarity in PISF volumes and CL in patients who received MD with or without photobiomodulation is that strict inclusion measures were imposed in the present study. It is well established that an immunosuppressed systemic health (for instance un‐controlled DM) is a risk factor for oral diseases including periodontitis and peri‐implantitis 29,33–35 . Similarly, habitual use of electronic nicotine delivery systems and combustible tobacco (such as cigarettes and waterpipe/narghile/shisha) is also directly linked with the prognosis and occurrence of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases 36–41 …”

Evaluation of Periodontopathogenic Bacteria Levels of Peri-Implants in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

“…Alshahrani ve ark. 18 ise yaptıkları çalışmada implant çevresi hastalık (peri-implant mukozitis ve peri-implantitis) gelişme riskinin zayıf kontrol altındaki diyabetik bireylerde iyi glisemik kontrol altındaki bireyler ve sistemik sağlıklı bireyler ile karşılaştırıldığında daha yüksek olduğunu bildirmiştir. Bunun yanısıra, son zamanlardaki bazı sistematik derlemeler ve meta analizler kronik hipergliseminin implant çevresi hastalıklarda önemli bir risk faktörü olduğunu bildirirken 19,20 , ancak son bulgular diyabet ve implant çevresi hastalıklar arasında önemli bir ilişki olmadığını bildirmektedir.…”

Clinical Evaluation of Short Tuberosity Implants among Type 2 Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients: A 5 Year Follow-Up

“…Therefore, the proposed hypothesis was rejected. This hypothesis was based on previous work and clinical trials which reported a significant decline in periodontal parameters, periimplantitis, and loss of alveolar bone with paresthesia around dental implants among diabetics when compared to non-diabetics [ 22 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. The outcomes of in-vivo studies reported that among participants with T2DM the intensity of parameters assessed is predisposed by glycemic status.…”