PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess whether long-term implant survival rates and bone loss in patients with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes is similar to the rates reported in the nondiabetic population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized patient medical records from a general practitioner's dental office. The records of patients who had moderately controlled type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) up to 8% and glucose level below 150 mg/dL were reviewed, as patients with HbA1c up to 7% are considered to be well-controlled type 2 diabetes. Follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: partially edentulous patients with missing teeth who were subsequently treated with implant-supported prosthetic restorations; patients were at least 18 years of age and demonstrated the ability to maintain oral hygiene. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients did not present for annual follow-up visits; patients presented with a neglected periodontal status; patient records had incomplete surgical or restorative data or nondiagnostic radiographs; implants with external hexagonal and machined surfaces. All the restorations were cement-retained. Three different implant insertion/placement methods were used: (1) implants immediately inserted following tooth extraction; (2) implants inserted 6 to 8 weeks after tooth extraction to allow for primary healing; and (3) implants inserted 4 to 6 months after tooth extraction. RESULTS: After review of more than 3,256 medical records, 169 patients were identified (with 1,112 implants) who met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up time was 8.7 years, with a minimum of 4.9 years. Sixty-seven implants failed, yielding a 94% overall implant survival rate. The overall mean bone loss around the implants was 1.98 (± 1.81) mm. Comparable to data published earlier, no statistical significance in survival rate was found between the nondiabetic and diabetic population. The delayed insertion protocol presented the least bone loss, compared with immediate insertion (P = .06), and compared with early insertion (P = .046). CONCLUSION: The results show that implant survival and bone loss levels were comparable to reported outcomes in the nondiabetic population. The delayed insertion protocol presented less bone loss compared with other insertion methods. Likewise, less bone loss was found in implants placed in the posterior region.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess whether long-term implant survival rates and bone loss in patients with moderately controlled type 2 diabetes is similar to the rates reported in the nondiabetic population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study utilized patient medical records from a general practitioner's dental office. The records of patients who had moderately controlled type 2 diabetes with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) up to 8% and glucose level below 150 mg/dL were reviewed, as patients with HbA1c up to 7% are considered to be well-controlled type 2 diabetes. Follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: partially edentulouspatients with missing teeth who were subsequently treated with implant-supported prosthetic restorations; patients were at least 18 years of age and demonstrated the ability to maintain oral hygiene. Exclusion criteria were as follows: patients did not present for annual follow-up visits; patients presented with a neglected periodontal status; patient records had incomplete surgical or restorative data or nondiagnostic radiographs; implants with external hexagonal and machined surfaces. All the restorations were cement-retained. Three different implant insertion/placement methods were used: (1) implants immediately inserted following tooth extraction; (2) implants inserted 6 to 8 weeks after tooth extraction to allow for primary healing; and (3) implants inserted 4 to 6 months after tooth extraction. RESULTS: After review of more than 3,256 medical records, 169 patients were identified (with 1,112 implants) who met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up time was 8.7 years, with a minimum of 4.9 years. Sixty-seven implants failed, yielding a 94% overall implant survival rate. The overall mean bone loss around the implants was 1.98 (± 1.81) mm. Comparable to data published earlier, no statistical significance in survival rate was found between the nondiabetic and diabetic population. The delayed insertion protocol presented the least bone loss, compared with immediate insertion (P = .06), and compared with early insertion (P = .046). CONCLUSION: The results show that implant survival and bone loss levels were comparable to reported outcomes in the nondiabetic population. The delayed insertion protocol presented less bone loss compared with other insertion methods. Likewise, less bone loss was found in implants placed in the posterior region.