Is Bruxism a Risk Factor for Dental Implants? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Abstract

Bruxism is unlikely to be a risk factor for biological complications around dental implants, while there are some suggestions that it may be a risk factor for mechanical complications.

Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group

“…Although a recent review (Manfredini et al 2014) has concluded that is unlikely that bruxism would be considered a risk factor for a higher implant failure, based on the identified studies that considered bruxism as presenting no or uncertain risk factor for biological complications in implant-supported restorations, there are some studies that corroborate our results. Wannfors et al (2000) and Glauser et al (2001) reported a significant relationship between bruxism and implant failure after the implants have been functional for 1 year, as well as Ji et al (Ji et al 2012), with a mean follow-up of 42.1 months.…”

International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: Report of a work in progress

“…Amongst the series of exchanges over whether bruxism should be considered a disorder, 4–6 Raphael et al 4 pointed out that if higher levels of masticatory muscle activity increase the risk of negative oral health consequences (eg, severe masticatory muscle pain or temporomandibular joint pain, extreme mechanical tooth wear, prosthodontic complications), 12–14 bruxism should be considered a risk factor rather than a disorder in otherwise healthy individuals. Whilst a risk factor is an attribute that increases the probability of a disorder but does not “guarantee” it, a disorder is a condition that is a harmful dysfunction per se, that is inherently causing harm to the person and representing a dysfunction in normal biopsychosocial processes.…”

Biomechanical influence of crown-to-implant ratio on stress distribution over internal hexagon short implant: 3-D finite element analysis with statistical test

“…The control of these factors is important to bone preservation (Lin et al, 2010a;Lin et al, 2010b) and prosthetic complication reduction (Goodacre et al, 2003), which could extend the implant-supported rehabilitation success rate (Manfredini et al, 2012).…”