Long-term Retrospective Study based on Implant Success Rate in Patients with Risk Factor: 15-year Follow-up

Kandasamy, Baburajan; Kaur, Navleen; Tomar, Gulshan K; Bharadwaj, Atul; Manual, Litto; Chauhan, Meghna

doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2217

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Risk factors such as diabetes, periodontitis, bruxism, smoking, antidepressants intake, bone augmentation procedures, head and neck radiotherapy [19][20][21][22] play a principal role in long-term implants' outcome. These factors are found at the patient level, meaning that they are poorly controllable over time, as they can worsen along with local or systemic health conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t1 = 12 vs. t2 = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two of these publications showed this especially in poorly controlled diabetes mellitus with an HbA1c > 8% with increased probing depths, bleeding on probing and peri-implant bone resorption [ 19 , 45 ]. In five studies, no clear conclusion could be drawn from the data obtained, so that the question of an increased risk was not answered [ 10 , 25 , 33 , 43 , 64 ]. However, the available aggregated literature consistently concluded that diabetes mellitus represents a risk factor for the development of peri-implant inflammation, although most studies point to a lack of high-quality and long-term studies on this research area [ 8 , 50 , 51 , 54 – 56 , 58 , 60 – 63 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review on diabetes mellitus and dental implants: an update

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Dental implant surgery was developed to be the most suitable and comfortable instrument for dental and oral rehabilitation in the past decades, but with increasing numbers of inserted implants, complications are becoming more common. Diabetes mellitus as well as prediabetic conditions represent a common and increasing health problem (International Diabetes Federation in IDF Diabetes Atlas, International Diabetes Federation, Brussels, 2019) with extensive harmful effects on the entire organism [(Abiko and Selimovic in Bosnian J Basic Med Sci 10:186–191, 2010), (Khader et al., in J Diabetes Complicat 20:59–68, 2006, 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2005.05.006)]. Hence, this study aimed to give an update on current literature on effects of prediabetes and diabetes mellitus on dental implant success. Methods A systematic literature research based on the PRISMA statement was conducted to answer the PICO question “Do diabetic patients with dental implants have a higher complication rate in comparison to healthy controls?”. We included 40 clinical studies and 16 publications of aggregated literature in this systematic review. Results We conclude that patients with poorly controlled diabetes mellitus suffer more often from peri-implantitis, especially in the post-implantation time. Moreover, these patients show higher implant loss rates than healthy individuals in long term. Whereas, under controlled conditions success rates are similar. Perioperative anti-infective therapy, such as the supportive administration of antibiotics and chlorhexidine, is the standard nowadays as it seems to improve implant success. Only few studies regarding dental implants in patients with prediabetic conditions are available, indicating a possible negative effect on developing peri-implant diseases but no influence on implant survival. Conclusion Dental implant procedures represent a safe way of oral rehabilitation in patients with prediabetes or diabetes mellitus, as long as appropriate precautions can be adhered to. Accordingly, under controlled conditions there is still no contraindication for dental implant surgery in patients with diabetes mellitus or prediabetic conditions.

show abstract

“…According to Kandasamy et al , risk factors for failure of dental implants include smoking, bruxism, diabetes, and bone augmentation. [ 4 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Outcome of Smoking on Healing of Bone Around Dental Implants

Alharethi

2023

Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To assess the outcome of cigarette smoking and non-smoking on the healing of bone around dental implants. Materials and Method: A retrospective analysis was made over 6 years of the clinical and radiographic findings corresponding to 60 consecutive patients (25 women and 35 men) who had received a total of 100 implants. Patients were divided into two groups: smokers, 32 patients (received 50 implants); and non-smokers (NSs), 28 patients (received 50 implants). Smokers were identified as people smoking >15 cigarettes per day. The success and failure cases were evaluated and studied. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Result: Smokers and NSs received 50 implants in each group with 5 (10%) and 2 (4%) failures and 90% and 96% of success in smokers and NSs, respectively. Smokers had a higher failure rate than NSs. The difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: The results indicated a higher success of implants in NSs compared to smokers.

show abstract

Long-term Retrospective Study based on Implant Success Rate in Patients with Risk Factor: 15-year Follow-up

Cited by 13 publications

References 14 publications

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

Systematic review on diabetes mellitus and dental implants: an update

The Outcome of Smoking on Healing of Bone Around Dental Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About