Mohammed N Alasqah1, Mohammed Alrabiah2, Khulud Abdulrahman Al-Aali3, Sameer A Mokeem4, Abdulelah M Binmahfooz5, Aws S ArRejaie2, Tariq Abduljabbar2,6. 1. Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College Of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University. Alkharj, Saudi Arabia. 2. Department of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 4. Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 6. Engineer Abdullah Bugshan Research Chair for Dental and Oral Rehabilitation, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term success and survival of dental implants type-2 diabetic subjects is debatable. PURPOSE: The present 6 years' follow-up prospective clinical study compared the peri-implant soft tissue status and crestal bone loss (CBL) around adjacent implants placed among type-2 diabetic and nondiabetic subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Type-2 diabetic (Group-1) and nondiabetic individuals (Group-2) with adjacent dental implants were included. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were recorded; and a questionnaire was used to collect demographic information. Information regarding implant dimensions, duration in function, loading protocol, and type of restoration was recorded. Peri-implant bleeding-on-probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and mesial and distal CBL were measured. P < .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-six male participants (44 in Group-1 and 42 in Group-2) were included. The mean age of individuals in groups 1 and 2 were 57.6 ± 5.5 and 61.6 ± 4.3 years, respectively. In Group-1, the mean duration of type-2 diabetes was 10.1 ± 3.5 years. A family history of diabetes was more often reported by individuals in Group-1 than Group-2. In groups 1 and 2, 44 and 42 pairs of adjacent implants, respectively were placed in the regions of missing premolars and molars in both arches. All implants were delayed loaded and were fixed with non-splinted screw-retained restorations. In groups 1 and 2, tooth-brushing twice daily was reported by 79.5% and 85.7% individuals, respectively. There was no difference in peri-implant PI, BOP, PD, mesial and distal CBL and HbA1c levels among individuals in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: Adjacent implants can remain esthetically and functionally stable in type 2 diabetic patients in a manner similar to healthy individuals provided glycemic levels are strictly controlled and maintained.
BACKGROUND: The long-term success and survival of dental implants type-2 diabetic subjects is debatable. PURPOSE: The present 6 years' follow-up prospective clinical study compared the peri-implant soft tissue status and crestal bone loss (CBL) around adjacent implants placed among type-2 diabetic and nondiabetic subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Type-2 diabetic (Group-1) and nondiabetic individuals (Group-2) with adjacent dental implants were included. Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were recorded; and a questionnaire was used to collect demographic information. Information regarding implant dimensions, duration in function, loading protocol, and type of restoration was recorded. Peri-implant bleeding-on-probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and mesial and distal CBL were measured. P < .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty-six male participants (44 in Group-1 and 42 in Group-2) were included. The mean age of individuals in groups 1 and 2 were 57.6 ± 5.5 and 61.6 ± 4.3 years, respectively. In Group-1, the mean duration of type-2 diabetes was 10.1 ± 3.5 years. A family history of diabetes was more often reported by individuals in Group-1 than Group-2. In groups 1 and 2, 44 and 42 pairs of adjacent implants, respectively were placed in the regions of missing premolars and molars in both arches. All implants were delayed loaded and were fixed with non-splinted screw-retained restorations. In groups 1 and 2, tooth-brushing twice daily was reported by 79.5% and 85.7% individuals, respectively. There was no difference in peri-implant PI, BOP, PD, mesial and distal CBL and HbA1c levels among individuals in groups 1 and 2. CONCLUSION: Adjacent implants can remain esthetically and functionally stable in type 2 diabeticpatients in a manner similar to healthy individuals provided glycemic levels are strictly controlled and maintained.