Quality of Life in Menopausal Women with Dental Restorations and Implants

Abstract

Aim: This multicenter study examined the relationship, possible interactions, and intermittent effects that dental implants and prostheses can have on menopausal women’s quality of life as well as provided information regarding the possible side effects of therapeutic regimens on menopause and osteoporosis or osteopenia. Materials and Methods: Questionnaires consisted of selected quality of life questions based on specific and additional medical and dental (mainly prosthodontic) questions, which were administered to 100 Greek menopausal/post-menopausal women (Age: Mean Value=63,62 years old) with osteopenia or with or without osteoporosis, with dental implants and implant restorations, or conventional prosthetic restorations visiting two University Hospitals. Menopausal/post-menopausal status was judged on the basis of either secondary, definitive amenorrhoea or based on follicular stimulation hormone ​​(FSH) values, estradiol, and clinical risk factors. Results: Participants had a statistically significantly better “functional” and “psychological” feeling after prosthodontic rehabilitation with and without implants. Three out of four reported that their dentist informed them of the possible implant problems that might arise from osteoporosis and its treatment (medications). Moreover, osteopenia was found to be associated with a very lower problem percentage. The bisphosphonate treatment had the highest rate (80%) of reported implant problems than non-bisphosphonate treatment (30%). The hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for menopause was reported to be more associated with problems in implant placement (19%) than in those without treatment (27.3%). Conclusion: The questionnaires revealed a significant improvement concerning women’s life quality and well-documented information about the problems their dental implants and restorations may cause in association with menopause and/or osteoporosis.

Does hormone replacement therapy impact implant osseointegration in females- A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Among the reports assessed for eligibility, 73 studies remained, after excluding literature reviews (57 studies) and scoping reviews (16 studies). In the final phase of the study selection process, six studies ( August et al, 2001 , de Souza et al, 2013 , Koszuta et al, 2015 , Zou et al, 2023 , Lázaro-Abdulkarim et al, 2022 , Stefos et al, 2022 ) met all the eligibility criteria and were included in the review.…”

“…Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the participants in the 6 studies ( August et al, 2001 , de Souza et al, 2013 , Koszuta et al, 2015 , Zou et al, 2023 , Lázaro-Abdulkarim et al, 2022 , Stefos et al, 2022 ) selected for the review. The table includes information on the year of publication, region of the study, sample size (n), and the mean age of the participants.…”

“…The follow-up periods also varied, with durations ranging from 6 to 105 months. These differences in sample sizes and follow-up periods reflect the heterogeneity of the selected studies ( August et al, 2001 , de Souza et al, 2013 , Koszuta et al, 2015 , Zou et al, 2023 , Lázaro-Abdulkarim et al, 2022 , Stefos et al, 2022 ).…”