Florian Wagner1, Krisztian Schuder2, Markus Hof3,4, Simone Heuberer4, Rudolf Seemann1, Gabriella Dvorak5. 1. University Clinic for Cranio- and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 2. Private Practice, Wilhelmstrasse 1c/2/5, Vienna, 1120, Austria. 3. School of Dentistry, Unit - Dental Student Training and Patient Care, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. Department for Oral Surgery, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 5. Department for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Osteoporosis, being a homeostatic imbalance, affects the remodeling of bone. Whether this catabolic bone disease influences peri-implant marginal bone remodeling remains unknown so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of osteoporosis on peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) in postmenopausal women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a matched collective, radiographic peri-implant bone level (at baseline and at follow-up examinations) was compared in healthy and osteoporotic women. General health and behavioral history of the patients were recorded using a printed questionnaire. RESULTS: A best fit matching procedure generated a sample of 48 women with a total of 204 implants matched at patient and implant level that was further statistically analyzed. The mean mesial MBL-statistically corrected to report the first year-was -0.6 ± 1.2 mm (range: -5.1 to 2.2) in the healthy control group and -1.1 ± 1.3 mm (range: -5.3 to 2.2) in the osteoporotic group. Similarly, the mean distal MBL was -0.5 ± 1.3 mm (range: -5.1 to 4.8) in the healthy control group and -1.2 ± 1.3 mm (range: -4.7 to 1.6) in the osteoporotic group, respectively. The base linear regression models including solely osteoporosis and time without any other confounders revealed a significant influence of osteoporosis and time since implant placement on the MBL at the mesial and the distal implant aspect. The significance of osteoporosis on bone loss did not change incorporating the confounders: bone level at implantation, smoking, jaw, location, surface, concrement, plaque, augmentation, edentulism in opposing and implant jaw, bisphosphonates, vitamin D, fixed versus removable prosthetics, connection type. CONCLUSIONS: There is no contraindication to place dental implants in osteoporotic patients. This study implicates to respect the bone level at implant placement and not to place the implant below bone level if possible.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE:Osteoporosis, being a homeostatic imbalance, affects the remodeling of bone. Whether this catabolic bone disease influences peri-implant marginal bone remodeling remains unknown so far. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of osteoporosis on peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) in postmenopausal women. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a matched collective, radiographic peri-implant bone level (at baseline and at follow-up examinations) was compared in healthy and osteoporoticwomen. General health and behavioral history of the patients were recorded using a printed questionnaire. RESULTS: A best fit matching procedure generated a sample of 48 women with a total of 204 implants matched at patient and implant level that was further statistically analyzed. The mean mesial MBL-statistically corrected to report the first year-was -0.6 ± 1.2 mm (range: -5.1 to 2.2) in the healthy control group and -1.1 ± 1.3 mm (range: -5.3 to 2.2) in the osteoporotic group. Similarly, the mean distal MBL was -0.5 ± 1.3 mm (range: -5.1 to 4.8) in the healthy control group and -1.2 ± 1.3 mm (range: -4.7 to 1.6) in the osteoporotic group, respectively. The base linear regression models including solely osteoporosis and time without any other confounders revealed a significant influence of osteoporosis and time since implant placement on the MBL at the mesial and the distal implant aspect. The significance of osteoporosis on bone loss did not change incorporating the confounders: bone level at implantation, smoking, jaw, location, surface, concrement, plaque, augmentation, edentulism in opposing and implant jaw, bisphosphonates, vitamin D, fixed versus removable prosthetics, connection type. CONCLUSIONS: There is no contraindication to place dental implants in osteoporoticpatients. This study implicates to respect the bone level at implant placement and not to place the implant below bone level if possible.
Authors: T Chevalley; M L Brandi; E Cavalier; N C Harvey; G Iolascon; C Cooper; D Hannouche; J-F Kaux; A Kurth; S Maggi; G Maier; K Papavasiliou; N Al-Daghri; M Sosa-Henríquez; N Suhm; U Tarantino; J-Y Reginster; R Rizzoli Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Santiago Bazal-Bonelli; Luis Sánchez-Labrador; Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann; Carlos Cobo-Vázquez; Natalia Martínez-Rodríguez; Tomás Beca-Campoy; Juan Santos-Marino; Emilio Rodríguez-Fernández; Mario Alvarado-Lorenzo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Livia Nastri; Antimo Moretti; Silvia Migliaccio; Marco Paoletta; Marco Annunziata; Sara Liguori; Giuseppe Toro; Massimiliano Bianco; Gennaro Cecoro; Luigi Guida; Giovanni Iolascon Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 5.717