Carlos Alexandre Soares Andrade1, João Lucas Carvalho Paz2, Gabriel Simino de Melo3, Nour Mahrouseh4, Alessandro Lourenço Januário5, Lucas Raineri Capeletti5,6. 1. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hajdú-Bihar, Hungary. soares.andrade@med.unideb.hu. 2. Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, Brazil. 3. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Postgraduate Department, São Leopoldo Mandic, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hajdú-Bihar, Hungary. 5. Department of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, Instituto Aria, Brasília, Distrito Federal, Brazil. 6. Department of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Goiás (UFG), Goiânia, Goiás, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant biological changes of immediately loaded dental implants (ILs) placed in type 2 diabetic patients (DM2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was registered on PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA checklist. The search was performed by the first reviewer in January 2021. The electronic databases used were MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and gray literature. The risk of bias analysis was performed using an instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 3566 titles and abstracts were obtained. The qualitative synthesis included 7 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 5 studies. The meta-analysis of IL in individuals with DM2 compared to nondiabetic individuals showed no significant difference among the groups regarding the survival rate of dental implants (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%), even if the patient had poor glycemic control (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.33; p = 0.48; I2 = 70%). Meta-analysis of marginal bone loss in IL compared to conventional loading in DM2 patients also showed no significant difference (mean difference = - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.25-0.08; p = 0.33; I2 = 83%). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus does not seem to be a risk factor for immediately loaded implants if the glycemic level is controlled, the oral hygiene is satisfactory, and the technical steps are strictly followed. Clinical relevance Rehabilitation in diabetic individuals is more common due to the highest prevalence of edentulism in this population. It is essential to establish appropriate protocols for loading dental implants.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant biological changes of immediately loaded dental implants (ILs) placed in type 2 diabetic patients (DM2). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was registered on PROSPERO and followed the PRISMA checklist. The search was performed by the first reviewer in January 2021. The electronic databases used were MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, LIVIVO, and gray literature. The risk of bias analysis was performed using an instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS: A total of 3566 titles and abstracts were obtained. The qualitative synthesis included 7 studies, while the quantitative synthesis included 5 studies. The meta-analysis of IL in individuals with DM2 compared to nondiabetic individuals showed no significant difference among the groups regarding the survival rate of dental implants (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04; p = 0.91; I2 = 0%), even if the patient had poor glycemic control (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.87-1.33; p = 0.48; I2 = 70%). Meta-analysis of marginal bone loss in IL compared to conventional loading in DM2 patients also showed no significant difference (mean difference = - 0.08, 95% CI - 0.25-0.08; p = 0.33; I2 = 83%). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes mellitus does not seem to be a risk factor for immediately loaded implants if the glycemic level is controlled, the oral hygiene is satisfactory, and the technical steps are strictly followed. Clinical relevance Rehabilitation in diabetic individuals is more common due to the highest prevalence of edentulism in this population. It is essential to establish appropriate protocols for loading dental implants.
Authors: Pouya Saeedi; Inga Petersohn; Paraskevi Salpea; Belma Malanda; Suvi Karuranga; Nigel Unwin; Stephen Colagiuri; Leonor Guariguata; Ayesha A Motala; Katherine Ogurtsova; Jonathan E Shaw; Dominic Bright; Rhys Williams Journal: Diabetes Res Clin Pract Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 5.602
Authors: S M F Lima; D C Grisi; E M Kogawa; O L Franco; V C Peixoto; J F Gonçalves-Júnior; M P Arruda; T M B Rezende Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 5.264
Authors: L J Pereira; R C Foureaux; C V Pereira; M C Alves; C H Campos; R C M Rodrigues Garcia; E F Andrade; T M S V Gonçalves Journal: J Oral Rehabil Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.837
Authors: Prakash Poudel; Rhonda Griffiths; Vincent W Wong; Amit Arora; Jeff R Flack; Chee L Khoo; Ajesh George Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2020-02-13 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Stefania Cantore; Salvatore Scacco; Cristian Quarta; Diego Sovereto; Francesca Spirito; Mario Alovisi; Giuseppe Troiano; Riccardo Aiuto; Daniele Garcovich; Vito Crincoli; Luigi Laino; Michele Covelli; Annarita Malcangi; Lorenzo Lo Muzio; Andrea Ballini; Michele Di Cosola Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-02-08