DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2015. References of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. Study selection: Prospective, retrospective and randomised clinical trials that compared marginal bone loss and failure rates between smokers and non-smokers. Implant failure was considered as total loss of the implant. Studies with patients who had periodontal disease prior to treatment or who had metabolic diseases were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers were involved in the research and screening process and disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of the studies was analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised clinical trials. Data extracted from the studies included, when available: follow up period, number of subjects, smoking status, number of implants placed, implant system, implant length and diameter, healing period, antibiotics and mouth-rinse use, marginal bone loss, failure rate and drop-outs. For binary outcomes (implant failure) the estimate of the intervention effect was expressed in the form of an odds ratio (OR) with the confidence interval (CI) of 95%. For continuous outcomes (marginal bone loss) the average and standard deviation (SD) were used to calculate the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. Meta-analysis was performed for studies with similar outcomes, I(2) a statistical test was used to express the heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was explored as well. RESULTS: A total of 15 observational studies were included in the review. The number of participants ranged from 60 to 1727 and the average age was 52.5 years. The follow-up period ranged from eight to 240 months. The total number of implants placed was 5840 in smokers and 14,683 in non-smokers. The Branemak system, (Noble Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden), was the most commonly used implant system. There was a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss favouring the non-smoking group (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.07-0.90). There was an increase in marginal bone loss in the maxillae of smokers compared to the mandible (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.55) and a statically significant difference in implant failure in favour of the non-smoking group OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.68-2.30. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of marginal bone loss and implant failure is increased in smokers compared to non-smokers, however, the results should be interpreted with caution since the data from the review are provided by retrospective and cohort studies.
DATA SOURCES: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to February 2015. References of included studies were also searched. No language restrictions were applied. Study selection: Prospective, retrospective and randomised clinical trials that compared marginal bone loss and failure rates between smokers and non-smokers. Implant failure was considered as total loss of the implant. Studies with patients who had periodontal disease prior to treatment or who had metabolic diseases were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers were involved in the research and screening process and disagreements were resolved by discussion. The quality of the studies was analysed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised clinical trials. Data extracted from the studies included, when available: follow up period, number of subjects, smoking status, number of implants placed, implant system, implant length and diameter, healing period, antibiotics and mouth-rinse use, marginal bone loss, failure rate and drop-outs. For binary outcomes (implant failure) the estimate of the intervention effect was expressed in the form of an odds ratio (OR) with the confidence interval (CI) of 95%. For continuous outcomes (marginal bone loss) the average and standard deviation (SD) were used to calculate the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI. Meta-analysis was performed for studies with similar outcomes, I(2) a statistical test was used to express the heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was explored as well. RESULTS: A total of 15 observational studies were included in the review. The number of participants ranged from 60 to 1727 and the average age was 52.5 years. The follow-up period ranged from eight to 240 months. The total number of implants placed was 5840 in smokers and 14,683 in non-smokers. The Branemak system, (Noble Biocare AB, Goteborg, Sweden), was the most commonly used implant system. There was a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss favouring the non-smoking group (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.07-0.90). There was an increase in marginal bone loss in the maxillae of smokers compared to the mandible (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.55) and a statically significant difference in implant failure in favour of the non-smoking group OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.68-2.30. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of marginal bone loss and implant failure is increased in smokers compared to non-smokers, however, the results should be interpreted with caution since the data from the review are provided by retrospective and cohort studies.
Authors: Carl E Misch; Morton L Perel; Hom-Lay Wang; Gilberto Sammartino; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Paolo Trisi; Marius Steigmann; Alberto Rebaudi; Ady Palti; Michael A Pikos; D Schwartz-Arad; Joseph Choukroun; Jose-Luis Gutierrez-Perez; Gaetano Marenzi; Dimosthenis K Valavanis Journal: Implant Dent Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.454
Authors: María Prados-Privado; Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos; Sérgio Alexandre Gehrke; Mariano Sánchez Siles; José Luis Calvo Guirado; José Antonio Bea Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.411