Peri‐Implant Response and Microflora in Organ Transplant Patients 1 Year after Prosthetic Loading: A Prospective Controlled Study

Montebugnoli, Lucio; Venturi, Michela; Cervellati, Fabio; Servidio, Dora; Vocale, Caterina; Pagan, Flavia; Landini, Maria Paola; Magnani, Gaia; Sambri, Vittorio

doi:10.1111/cid.12207

Cited by 26 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 42 publications

(47 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this clinical study can be compared with a recent publication from our research group assessing the long‐term outcomes of implant therapy in liver transplant patients where in a similar manner, pharmacological immunosuppression and liver transplant were not a significant risk for implant therapy (Paredes et al, ). The existing evidence on the long‐term outcome of implant therapy in these populations is seldom, with only two prospective controlled studies in a very small sample (eight heart transplants and two liver transplants), but in all the reports, the success of implant treatment was high in these patients (Montebugnoli et al, , ). Other published clinical reports have reported similar results, but with a discrete number of participants and a short follow‐up period (Gu et al, ; Gu & Yu, ; Heckmann et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant treatment in immunosuppressed renal transplant patients: A prospective case‐controlled study

Hernández

Paredes

López‐Pintor

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate long-term outcomes of implant therapy in a cohort of immunosuppressed renal transplant patients compared with a matched control group. Material and methods:Pharmacologically immunosuppressed renal transplant patients received dental implant treatment between 2001 and 2011. Periodontal, clinical and radiographic parameters were prospectively measured with a mean follow-up of 116.8 months (range from 84 to 192 months). A matched controlled non-transplant sample receiving similar implant treatment in the same time was included as a control group.Results: Implant survival rate was over 98% in both test and control groups (100% and 98.84%, respectively). Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 46.80% of the implants in the study group and in 48.80% in the control group. Peri-implantitis occurred in 5.10% of the implants in the study group and in 8.10% of the controls.Wound healing and post-operative pain were similar in both groups. Conclusions:Despite the limitations of this study, pharmacological immunosuppression in renal transplant patients did not affect implant outcomes. Renal transplant patients should be carefully controlled periodically after implant treatment. Clinical implications:The results from this investigation justify the use of dental implants for the dentalrehabilitation of immunosuppressed patients after renal transplantation provided they follow the necessarylong-term monitoring and regular maintenance of their oral and systemic health. K E Y W O R D Sdental implants, immunosuppression, mucosal disturbances, peri-implant disease, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, renal transplant | 525 HERNÁNDEZ Et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant treatment in immunosuppressed renal transplant patients: A prospective case‐controlled study

Hernández

Paredes

López‐Pintor

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(), Gu and Yu () and a control study consisting of 10 transplanted patients and 10 control by Montebugnoli et al. (, ). These studies have evaluated the survival of implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (Heckmann et al., ) and implant‐fixed prosthesis (Gu & Yu, ; Gu, Wang et al., ; Montebugnoli et al., , ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(, ). These studies have evaluated the survival of implant‐retained mandibular overdenture (Heckmann et al., ) and implant‐fixed prosthesis (Gu & Yu, ; Gu, Wang et al., ; Montebugnoli et al., , ). These studies reported no impact of the systemic condition on the implant success or survival, although these studies did not evaluate the long‐term outcomes or the peri‐implant tissue health.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant treatment in pharmacologically immunosuppressed liver transplant patients: A prospective‐controlled study

Paredes

López‐Pintor

Torres

et al. 2017

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The main objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of implant therapy in liver transplant patients (LTP). The secondary goal was to assess several implant-and patient-dependent variables, such as peri-implantitis (PI), periimplant mucositis (PIM), bone loss (BL), and immediate postoperative complications. Results:The early postsurgical complications were similar in both groups. Implant survival rate was 100% in the LTP group and 98.15% in the CG. PIM was diagnosed in 35.42% of the implants and 64.29% of the patients of LTP group (LTPG) and in 43.40% of the implants and 56.25% of the patients in the CG. PI was detected in 4.17% of the implants and 7.10% of the patients in the LTPG and in 9.43% of the implants and 18.80% of the patients in the CG. Conclusion:Pharmacologically immunosuppression in liver transplant patients was not a risk factor for implant failure, nor for the incidence of peri-implant diseases. Liver transplant is not a contraindication for dental implant treatment, although these patients should be carefully monitored during follow-up care. K E Y W O R D Sdental implants, immunosuppresion, liver transplant, mucosal disturbances, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis

show abstract

“…Inter-examiner reliability was considered as excellent (kappa score = 0.9754, 95% CI: 0.9656-0.9852). [32] c c a a a/b b a a 7 (Low)…”

Section: Characteristics Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This systematic review investigates the failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in patients undergoing solid-organ transplant (SOT) compared to healthy controls. Three databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42019124896). Case-control and cohort studies reporting data failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in SOT patients were included. The risk of bias of observational studies was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Four case-control studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria; all had low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed consistently lower implant failure rate than control populations at patient and implant levels. SOT patients had a significant difference of −18% (p-value < 0.001) MBL compared to healthy patients. SOT status poses no serious threat to implant survival. Overall, this group of patients presented lower levels of dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss compared to otherwise healthy patients. Further intervention trials with larger sample size and longer follow-ups are necessary to confirm these summarized results.

show abstract

Peri‐Implant Response and Microflora in Organ Transplant Patients 1 Year after Prosthetic Loading: A Prospective Controlled Study

Cited by 26 publications

References 42 publications

Implant treatment in immunosuppressed renal transplant patients: A prospective case‐controlled study

Implant treatment in immunosuppressed renal transplant patients: A prospective case‐controlled study

Implant treatment in pharmacologically immunosuppressed liver transplant patients: A prospective‐controlled study

Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About