Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from 1 month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model. Results: Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/ 110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs

Dental Implant Treatment in Patients Suffering from Oral Lichen Planus: A Narrative Review

“…Recent systematic reviews reported a survival rate of dental implants placed in OLP patients of 98.9% after 38 months, 97.3% after 5 years, or 95.8% during a follow-up period ranging from 1 to 13 years [ 20 , 30 , 31 ]. The results from other systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the outcomes of dental implants in OLP patients are provided in Table 2 [ 20 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 ].…”

Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review

“…11,29 On the other hand, most of the long term follow-up studies included almost exclusively fixed implant-supported prostheses. 10,14,26 In addition, fixed implant-supported prostheses could prevent oral mucosa friction or injury derived from the loss of overdentures base settlement and their need for periodical adjustment. 30 During the prosthetic planification, it shouldn't be forgotten that this disease is a potentially malignant disorder, with an overall transformation rate of 1.40% (1.37% for OLP and 2.43% OLL) as stated in a recent systematic review by Giuliani et al 31 For this reason, prostheses should be easily retrieved during the mandatory regular checkup of the entire oral mucosa of these patients.…”

“…Although many articles have demonstrated a high rate of implant survival in OLP patients, the type of materials employed to perform the prosthetic rehabilitation is not frequently nor detailed described in them. 10,14,25,39,51 Attending dental restorations related research some metals like gold, mercury, palladium, nickel or copper could be related with the etiology and clinical evolution of OLP lesions, and particularly with oral lichenoid lesions. 52 It also has been suggested a possible correlation between corrosion process in the oral environment and oral lichen planus (OLP) pathology.…”

“…8,9 Old controversies about the survival of implants in OLP patients were overcome and today, dental implant therapy is widely considered as safe and predictable in these patients, although the literature in this field is scarce. [10][11][12][13][14] In addition, dental implants do not seem to influence manifestations of OLP nor being a risk factor for peri-implantitis. 15 Different recent systematic reviews have observed a survival rate of implants placed in OLP patients of 97.3% after 5 years 10 or 95.8% during a follow-up period ranging from 1 to 13 years 11 Other results from systematic reviews in relation to the outcomes of dental implants in OLP patients are provided in Table 1.…”

“…Beyond the surgical considerations, prosthetic rehabilitation may also have clinical implications for a successful result. 9,11,14 Oral rehabilitation with minimally invasive alternative to surgical augmentations have been shown to provide successful clinical outcomes on the Highlights -Dental implant therapy is considered safe and predictable in OLP patients. -No guidelines exist on how to perform implantprosthetic treatment.…”