Implant Survival in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Placement to 36 Months

Morris, Harold F.; Ochi, Shigeru; Winkler, Sheldon

doi:10.1902/annals.2000.5.1.157

Cited by 188 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

160

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The study of Morris et al (2000) was the only one associating some variables to diabetes and implant failure rates. They reported improved implant survival for patients who were treated with antibiotics in comparison with those treated without prophylactic antibiotics, but the survival improvement was greater in diabetic patients (97.1% vs. 86.6%) than in nondiabetic patients (95.1% vs. 90.6%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diabetes and Oral Implant Failure

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate whether there are any effects of diabetes mellitus on implant failure rates, postoperative infections, and marginal bone loss. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. The present review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies. The search strategy resulted in 14 publications. The I 2 statistic was used to express the percentage of total variation across studies due to heterogeneity. The inverse variance method was used for the random effects model when heterogeneity was detected or for the fixed effects model when heterogeneity was not detected. The estimates of an intervention for dichotomous outcomes were expressed in risk ratio and in mean difference in millimeters for continuous outcomes, both with a 95% confidence interval. There was a statistically significant difference (p = .001; mean difference = 0.20, 95% confidence interval = 0.08, 0.31) between diabetic and non-diabetic patients concerning marginal bone loss, favoring non-diabetic patients. A meta-analysis was not possible for postoperative infections. The difference between the patients (diabetic vs. non-diabetic) did not significantly affect implant failure rates (p = .65), with a risk ratio of 1.07 (95% confidence interval = 0.80, 1.44). Studies are lacking that include both patient types, with larger sample sizes, and that report the outcome data separately for each group. The results of the present metaanalysis should be interpreted with caution because of the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diabetes and Oral Implant Failure

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests that the microvascular disease leading to a diminished immune response and reduced bone turnover might be a contributing factor to implant failure (Olson et al, 2000), and that diabetes is one of several risk factors for implants that had survived until prosthetic loading (Morris et al, 2000).…”

Section: (B) Dental Implants In Patients With Diabetes Mellitusmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hydroxyapatite plasma-spray-coated implants have been found to have a higher survival rate than titanium implants in type 2 diabetic patients, i.e., 97.9% vs. 84.7% after 36 months (Morris et al, 2000). This is noteworthy, since hydroxyapatite (HA) plasma-spray-coated implants are more susceptible to failure through microbial contamination, dissolution, and fracture of the HA from the titanium surface (Johnson, 1992).…”

Section: (C) Special Considerations For Implant Therapy In Patients Wmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Beikler

Flemmig

2003

Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dental clinicians are confronted with an increasing number of medically compromised patients who require implant surgery for their oral rehabilitation. However, there are few guidelines on dental implant therapy in this patient category, so that numerous issues regarding pre-and post-operative management remain unclear to the dental clinician. Therefore, the aim of the present review is to offer a critical evaluation of the literature and to provide the clinician with scientifically based data for implant therapy in the medically compromised patient. This review presents the current knowledge regarding the influence of the most common systemic and local diseases on the outcome of dental implant therapy, e.g., abnormalities in bone metabolism, diabetes mellitus, xerostomia, and ectodermal dysplasias. Specific pathophysiologic aspects of the above-mentioned diseases as well as their potential implications for implant success are critically appraised. In line with these implications, guidelines for pre-and post-operative management that may assist in the successful implant-supported rehabilitation of this patient category are proposed.

show abstract

“…Most studies reviewed confirm these experimental results. In a 3-year retrospective study, a higher frequency of implant failure was shown in diabetic patients (7.8%) than in healthy patients (6.8%) [ 54 ].…”

Section: Dmentioning

confidence: 93%

Examination and Diagnosis

2016

Clinical Cases in Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implant Survival in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Placement to 36 Months

Abstract: Type 2 diabetic patients tend to have more failures than non-diabetic patients; however, the influence was marginally significant. These findings need to be confirmed by other scientific clinical studies with a larger Type 2 diabetic sample size.

Cited by 188 publications

References 16 publications

Diabetes and Oral Implant Failure

Diabetes and Oral Implant Failure

Implants in the Medically Compromised Patient

Examination and Diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About