Literature DB >> 25283479

Periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic1, Tomas Albrektsson2, Ann Wennerberg3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for the insertion of dental implants in periodontally compromised patients (PCPs) compared to the insertion in periodontally healthy patients (PHPs), against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
METHODS: An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in March 2014. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not.
RESULTS: 2768 studies were identified in the search strategy and 22 studies were included. The estimates of relative effect were expressed in risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) in millimetres. All studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, none were randomized. A total of 10,927 dental implants were inserted in PCPs (587 failures; 5.37%), and 5881 implants in PHPs (226 failures; 3.84%). The difference between the patients significantly affected the implant failure rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.50-2.11; P<0.00001), also observed when only the controlled clinical trials were pooled (RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.38-2.80; P=0.0002). There were significant effects of dental implants inserted in PCPs on the occurrence of postoperative infections (RR 3.24, 95% CI 1.69-6.21; P=0.0004) and in marginal bone loss (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.33-0.87; P<0.0001) when compared to PHPs.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that an increased susceptibility for periodontitis may also translate to an increased susceptibility for implant loss, loss of supporting bone, and postoperative infection. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, none of them randomized. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There is some evidence that patients treated for periodontitis may experience more implant loss and complications around implants including higher bone loss and peri-implantitis than non-periodontitis patients. As the philosophies of treatment may alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures. This would form a basis for optimum treatment.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dental implants; Implant failure rate; Marginal bone loss; Meta-analysis; Periodontal disease; Periodontitis; Postoperative infection

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25283479     DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent        ISSN: 0300-5712            Impact factor:   4.379


  18 in total

1.  Should implants be considered for patients with periodontal disease?

Authors:  E King; R Patel; A Patel; L Addy
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-12-09       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Effect of periodontitis history on implant success: a long-term evaluation during supportive periodontal therapy in a university setting.

Authors:  Christian Graetz; Karim Fawzy El-Sayed; Antje Geiken; Anna Plaumann; Sonja Sälzer; Eleonore Behrens; Jörg Wiltfang; Christof E Dörfer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-03-28       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Tetracycline-incorporated polymer nanofibers as a potential dental implant surface modifier.

Authors:  Marco C Bottino; Eliseu A Münchow; Maria T P Albuquerque; Krzysztof Kamocki; Rana Shahi; Richard L Gregory; Tien-Min G Chu; Divya Pankajakshan
Journal:  J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 3.368

4.  Novel bioactive tetracycline-containing electrospun polymer fibers as a potential antibacterial dental implant coating.

Authors:  R G Shahi; M T P Albuquerque; E A Münchow; S B Blanchard; R L Gregory; M C Bottino
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 2.634

5.  Effect of UV-photofunctionalization on oral bacterial attachment and biofilm formation to titanium implant material.

Authors:  Erica Dorigatti de Avila; Bruno P Lima; Takeo Sekiya; Yasuyoshi Torii; Takahiro Ogawa; Wenyuan Shi; Renate Lux
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 12.479

6.  Evaluation of cervical peri-implant optical density in longitudinal control of immediate implants in the anterior maxilla region.

Authors:  Renan Lucio Berbel da Silva; Eduardo Felippe Duailibi Neto; Franscisco Fernando Todescan; Glaucio Morente Ruiz; Claudio Mendes Pannuti; Israel Chilvarquer
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2020-05-27       Impact factor: 2.419

Review 7.  Risk Factors for Peri-Implantitis: Effect of History of Periodontal Disease and Smoking Habits. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Claudio Stacchi; Federico Berton; Giuseppe Perinetti; Andrea Frassetto; Teresa Lombardi; Aiman Khoury; Francesca Andolsek; Roberto Di Lenarda
Journal:  J Oral Maxillofac Res       Date:  2016-09-09

Review 8.  Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: A literature review.

Authors:  Masahiro Wada; Tomoaki Mameno; Motohiro Otsuki; Misako Kani; Yoshitaka Tsujioka; Kazunori Ikebe
Journal:  Jpn Dent Sci Rev       Date:  2021-06-08

Review 9.  Innate Immunity and Biomaterials at the Nexus: Friends or Foes.

Authors:  Susan N Christo; Kerrilyn R Diener; Akash Bachhuka; Krasimir Vasilev; John D Hayball
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-07-12       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 10.  How do peri-implant biologic parameters correspond with implant survival and peri-implantitis? A critical review.

Authors:  Ron Doornewaard; Wolfgang Jacquet; Jan Cosyn; Hugo De Bruyn
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 5.977

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.