Does osteoporosis influence the marginal peri‐implant bone level in female patients? A cross‐sectional study in a matched collective

Wagner, Florian; Schuder, Krisztian; Hof, M.A. van ‘t; Heuberer, Simone; Seemann, Rudolf; Dvorak, Gabriella

doi:10.1111/cid.12493

Cited by 47 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(106 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reason for exclusion Stvrtecky, Kaufman, and Borgetti, (1995) Only 9 patients Marx, Sawatari, Fortin, and Broumand (2005) Only 4 Famili and Zavoral (2015) Only 3 patients with relevant medication intake Nisi et al (2015) Only 9 patients with MRONJ associated with implants Rugani, Kirnbauer, Acham, Truschnegg, and Jakse (2015) Single case report Matsuo et al (2016) Only 6 patients Gurgel et al (2017) Patients with BP and/or HRT intake not reported separately Wagner et al (2017) Only 5 patients with BP intake…”

Section: Appendix 1 Information Sources and Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Stavropoulos

Bertl

Pietschmann

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side effects of ARD intake in connection to various aspects of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to answer the focused question "In patients with systemic intake of ARDs, what is the outcome and complication rate of implant therapy including associated bone grafting procedures comparing to patients without systemic intake of ARDs?" Materials and Methods:Original studies fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled and/or randomized controlled clinical trials; retro-or prospective design; and ≥10 patients with systemic intake of ARDs). Various patient-, medication-, and intervention-related parameters [i.e., implant loss, grafting procedure complication/failure, peri-implant marginal bone levels/loss, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and periimplantitis] were extracted, and meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed. Results:Twenty-four studies with bisphosphonate (BP) intake (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and seven studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), including ≥10 patients, and controls not taking the medication were identified.Furthermore, seven studies on MRONJ associated with implants were included.Meta-analyses based on four studies reporting on patient level and eight studies reporting on implant level showed no significant differences in terms of implant loss between patients on BPs (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and controls.Furthermore, low-dose BP intake did not compromise peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on two studies, no negative effect of HRT was observed on the implant level, while HRT appeared to exert a marginally significant negative effect regarding implant survival on the patient level and regarding peri-implant marginal bone levels.Based on six studies reporting single-patient data, MRONJ in patients on BP for osteoporosis appeared in 70% of the cases >36 months after start of drug intake, while in patients with cancer, MRONJ appeared in 64% of the cases ≤36 months after first BP intake.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. | 55STAVROPOULOS eT AL. | 57 STAVROPOULOS eT AL.Random-effects meta-analyses, separately for each ARD type, were implemented to calculate from the included cohort and casecontrol studies pooled estimates at the patient and/or implant level.All statistical analyses were performed using Stata (StataCorp LLC, USA).

show abstract

Section: Appendix 1 Information Sources and Literature Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

Stavropoulos

Bertl

Pietschmann

et al. 2018

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Bone Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…A more common disease affecting bones is osteoporosis. Generally speaking, there is no contraindication to apply dental implants in osteoporosis patients; the implant survival rate is comparable to that observed in healthy controls (Alqutaibi & Radi, ; Temmerman, Rasmusson, Kübler, Thor, & Quirynen, ; Wagner et al., ). However, the rate of peri‐implant bone loss might be slightly higher in osteoporosis patients, but this observation is in need of long‐term follow‐up.…”

Section: Bone Diseasesmentioning

confidence: 75%

The medically compromised patient: Are dental implants a feasible option?

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In healthy subjects, dental implants have evolved to be a common therapy to solve problems related to stability and retention of dentures as well as to replace failing teeth. Although dental implants are applied in medically compromised patients, it is often not well known whether this therapy is also feasible in these patients, whether the risk of implant failure and developing peri-implantitis is increased, and what specific preventive measures, if any, have to be taken when applying dental implants in these patients. Generally speaking, as was the conclusion by the leading review of Diz, Scully, and Sanz on placement of dental implants in medically compromised patients (J Dent, 41, 2013, 195), in a few disorders implant survival may be lower, and the risk of a compromised peri-implant health and its related complications be greater, but the degree of systemic disease control outweighs the nature of the disorder rather than the risk accompanying dental implant treatment. So, as dental implant treatment is accompanied by significant functional benefits and improved oral health-related quality of life, dental implant therapy is a feasible treatment in almost any medically compromised patient when the required preventive measures are taken and follow-up care is at a high level.

show abstract

“…In diabetic patients failures started from the first few months and continued over the following 10 years; in smokers, most failures occurred within the first year, with very few failing at later time points. 26 Osteoporosis is not contraindication to implant therapy, 15,23,[27][28][29] and some authors have compared osteoporotic bone to the proposed model of bone type four. 15,29 In addition, osteoporotic patients treated with oral bisphosphonates which is an antiresorptive medication have low risk of developing osteonecrosis, 15,29 but there is a high risk of osteonecrosis in patients receiving intravenous bisphosphonates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patterns of Prosthetic Treatment Modalities in Implant Dentistry in a Saudi Population

Al-Safadi

Al-Gannass

Al-Baraki

et al. 2020

ijetst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The aim of this study was to detect and describe the patterns of implant prosthetic treatment modalities placed in partially and fully edentulous Saudi patients restored with dental implants in Saudi Arabia, and to detect the status of the health insurance covering dental implants in Saudi Arabia. Materials and Methods: 520 Saudi patients aged ≥18 years residing in Saudi Arabia and treated with at least one dental implant done in dental health premises in Saudi Arabia were randomly included in the study. Clinical and radiographic examination were used to detect implant prostheses types (single-tooth implant, implant-supported long or short span conventional fixed bridge, implant overdenture). The health insurance covering dental implants was detected too. The data obtained including age, gender, systemic disease, and tobacco smoking were documented in a patient examination form then statistically analyzed using Chi-Square Test and U-Test. Results: The most frequently tooth type replaced by dental implants was the molars (45.5%), followed by premolars (40%), incisors (7.7%), and canines (6.8%); mandibular first molars were the most common tooth type replaced by implants. Single-tooth implant was the most common prosthetic treatment modality (85.2%), followed by implant-supported short span conventional fixed bridge (9.8%), implant overdenture (2.8%), and implant-supported long span conventional fixed bridge (2.2%). The majority of implant overdenture prostheses were seen in the age group ≥ 60 years. Implant-supported long span fixed bridge prostheses were more in patients aged ≥ 50 years than in patients aged < 50 years, while single-tooth implant prostheses were more in patients aged < 50 years than in patients aged ≥ 50 years. Of all teeth types replaced by dental implants, molars were the most common type seen in implant-supported long span fixed bridges and in single-tooth implants, whereas canines were the most common type seen in overdentures. There was an insignificant difference in the median number of dental implants between males and females. Conclusion: Single-tooth implant is major. Health insurance policy doesn’t cover dental implants in Saudi Arabia. Keywords: Implant, Modalities, Prostheses/Prosthetic, Type

show abstract

Does osteoporosis influence the marginal peri‐implant bone level in female patients? A cross‐sectional study in a matched collective

Abstract: There is no contraindication to place dental implants in osteoporotic patients. This study implicates to respect the bone level at implant placement and not to place the implant below bone level if possible.

Cited by 47 publications

References 45 publications

The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

The effect of antiresorptive drugs on implant therapy: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

The medically compromised patient: Are dental implants a feasible option?

Patterns of Prosthetic Treatment Modalities in Implant Dentistry in a Saudi Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About