Clinical effectiveness of Zirconia versus titanium dental implants in anterior region: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Nowadays dental implants are commonly used and to fulfil esthetic demands, zirconia has been suggested as an implant material as an alternative to titanium. Many researchers and systematic reviews are documented on it, but the results have been often inconsistent. This overview of systematic reviews aimed to report on the factors that influence the clinical effectiveness of zirconia (Zi) versus titanium (Ti) dental implants in anterior region.

METHODS

This overview of systematic reviews (Registration Number CRD42023396206) is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar databases were sourced for systematic review and meta-analyses. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) criteria and Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR-2), evaluated the quality. The PICO-focused question of this overview of systematic reviews was "What are the various factors influencing the clinical performance of Zi versus Ti implants in the anterior area?", Evaluations were assessed by two assessors. In case there was any uncertainty or dispute among the reviewers, the work was included for further screening. Using Cohen's kappa, the inter-reviewer reliability was evaluated.

RESULTS

Six reviews were chosen from 57 suitable reviews for this data analysis. Although the survival and effectiveness rates backed titanium implants, there was no conclusive proof of marginal bone loss. Zirconium implants performed better in terms of aesthetics.

CONCLUSION

Clinical performance of zirconia could be considered at par with titanium implants in the anterior area. Titanium has exhibited greater mechanical performance but no significant difference between two recorded. In future, studies with improved design are needed to identify biological and technical factors that affect implant's efficacy.

NOVELTY AND RELEVANCE

This is the first overview of systematic reviews focusing specifically on the anterior region, evaluates both aesthetic and biomechanical performance of Zi and Ti Implants, offers detailed insight into material-specific advantages and limitations. In the present clinical scenario it addresses a critical gap by comparing the performance of Zi and Ti implants and evaluates patient-centred priorities, particularly in the highly visible anterior region.

Electronic Cigarettes and Peri-Implantitis: An Umbrella Review

Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are offered to consumers as a healthier option than traditional tobacco. However, the long-term effect of non-heat-burning tobacco and e-cigarettes on periodontal and peri-implantitis is unknown. The present review evaluates the impact of electronic cigarettes on peri-implantitis and compares the results with traditional cigarettes and nonsmokers. Systematic/meta-analysis studies were searched in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar until December 30, 2022. Five systematic/meta-analysis studies were identified based on the search strategy in the selected databases. The overall quality assessment of the studies showed acceptable evidence with high quality. All systematic review studies showed that compared with traditional tobacco smoke, electronic cigarettes might reduce or not change the clinical inflammatory symptoms of periodontitis and peri-implantitis, such as bleeding on probing, probing depth, peri-implant bone loss, and response to treatments. Electronic cigarettes contain nicotine, which can harm periodontal and implant health. On the other hand, a wide range of oral health consequences may be associated with using e-cigarettes. E-cigarette is a potential risk factor for the healing process and the results of implant treatment.

Evidence-Based Critical Assessment of the Success Rate of Dental Implants in Smokers: An Umbrella Systematic Review

The aim of this umbrella systematic review is to evaluate the success rate and osseointegration of dental implants in patients with a smoking habit. Electronic database searches of PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and EBSCOhost were done from 2006 until August 2024, using medical subject headings (MeSH) terms. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) investigating the association between smoking and the rate of success of dental implants based on dental implant failure, marginal bone loss, survival, and peri-implant parameters were deemed eligible. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews Tool 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to assess the quality of the included SRMAs. Seventeen systematic reviews have been included. In the reviews, 10 studies included meta-analyses (MAs) that evaluated implant failure rate and marginal bone loss. According to the AMSTAR 2 checklist, one review was scored "high," seven reviews were scored "moderate," seven reviews were scored "low," and two reviews were scored "critically low" quality. The strength of evidence suggests a low level of success and high rate of failure of osseointegration of dental implants in smokers. However, the influence of smoking on the rate of dental implant failure seems to be associated with various factors such as peri-implant inflammatory markers, post-operative infections, etc. Inherently, the conclusion of this review is based on a limited number of systematic reviews.

Bone regeneration in implant dentistry: Which are the factors affecting the clinical outcome?

The key factors that are needed for bone regeneration to take place include cells (osteoprogenitor and immune-inflammatory cells), a scaffold (blood clot) that facilitates the deposition of the bone matrix, signaling molecules, blood supply, and mechanical stability. However, even when these principles are met, the overall amount of regenerated bone, its stability over time and the incidence of complications may significantly vary. This manuscript provides a critical review on the main local and systemic factors that may have an impact on bone regeneration, trying to focus, whenever possible, on bone regeneration simultaneous to implant placement to treat bone dehiscence/fenestration defects or for bone contouring. In the future, it is likely that bone tissue engineering will change our approach to bone regeneration in implant dentistry by replacing the current biomaterials with osteoinductive scaffolds combined with cells and mechanical/soluble factors and by employing immunomodulatory materials that can both modulate the immune response and control other bone regeneration processes such as osteogenesis, osteoclastogenesis, or inflammation. However, there are currently important knowledge gaps on the biology of osseous formation and on the factors that can influence it that require further investigation. It is recommended that future studies should combine traditional clinical and radiographic assessments with non-invasive imaging and with patient-reported outcome measures. We also envisage that the integration of multi-omics approaches will help uncover the mechanisms responsible for the variability in regenerative outcomes observed in clinical practice.

Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes

PURPOSE

To assess the body of evidence of short versus regular implants after bone augmentation (BA) in the atrophic posterior mandible in the context of implant treatment success outcomes.

METHODS

Seven databases, two registries, and reference lists were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR/MA), randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and longitudinal studies published in English, Spanish or German since 2012. Confidence in the SR/MA methodology was evaluated using AMSTAR-2 and the risk of bias of primary studies using Cochrane's RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. A random-effects meta-analysis and a meta-regression were performed for continuous and dichotomous outcomes. GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Eighteen SRs/MAs, most of them "critically low" and "low" confidence with substantial overlap, included 14 relevant RCTs with a high risk of bias. A cohort study with moderate risk of bias was added. Quantitative synthesis of 595 implants and 281 hemiarches/patients indicates that the use of short implants (< 10 mm) compared to regular implants and BA may reduce implant failure at 1-year follow-up, and marginal bone loss (MBL) at 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; is likely to reduce the risk of biological complications at 1-, 3-, 5-, and 8-year follow-up; and may be the patient's preferred alternative. There is a correlation between bone height, MBL and biological complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence partially suggests that the use of short implants could decrease implant failure, MBL, and biological complications, and increase patient satisfaction. However, given the need for further RCTs and real-world evidence to fully evaluate short- and long-term outcomes, it would be prudent for clinicians to carefully consider the individual needs and circumstances of the patients before deciding whether to use short implants. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42022333526.

Assessment of Bone Loss Around Dental Implant in Smokers

Objectives

This research was done to assess how much bone is lost around dental implants in smokers.

Material and Method

There were 80 participants total in the study, 40 of whom were smokers (Group I) and 40 of who were non-smokers (Group II). By evaluating the patients' clinical and radiographic data, the marginal bone-level measurements were determined. The acquired information underwent statistical analysis.

Results

Smokers were found to have worse overall clinical parameters than non-smokers (P 0.05). Smokers experience more marginal bone loss around implants than non-smokers do.

Conclusion

Smoking has a negative impact on the outcome rate of dental implants.

Clinical Performance Comparing Titanium and Titanium–Zirconium or Zirconia Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.

The 10 Year Outcomes of Implants Inserted with Dehiscence or Fenestrations in the Rehabilitation of Completely Edentulous Jaws with the All-on-4 Concept

Background: There is a need for a long-term evidence of implants placed in challenging conditions. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of full-arch rehabilitations with the All-on-4 concept for implants inserted with dehiscence or fenestrations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 123 patients (dehiscence, n = 87 patients; fenestrations, n = 28 patients; both conditions, n = 8 patients), with a total of 192 implants in immediate function presenting dehiscence (n = 150), fenestrations (n = 40), or both conditions (n = 2). Primary outcome measures were cumulative implant survival (CSurR) and success (CSucR) rates. Secondary outcome measures were prosthetic survival, marginal bone loss, and incidence of biological complications. Results: CSurRs were 94.1% (overall), 95.6% (dehiscence), and 88.1% (fenestrations) at 10 years using the patient as the unit of analysis. Smoking affected implant failure significantly (p = 0.019). Implant-level CSurRs and CSucRs at 10 years were 96.2% and 93.5% (overall), 97.2% and 94.6% (dehiscence), and 90.0% and 87.6% (fenestrations), respectively. Average bone resorption at 5 and 10 years was 1.22 mm and 1.53 mm, respectively. Biological complications occurred in 18 patients (n = 18 implants). Conclusions: Implants inserted with dehiscence or fenestrations demonstrate good long-term outcomes with overall high success and survival rates and low average marginal bone resorption, despite an inferior outcome in implants with fenestrations and smoking’s negative effect.

Ten-year follow-up of full-arch rehabilitations supported by implants in immediate function with nasal and full-length palatine bicortical anchorage on the anterior maxilla

PURPOSE

To evaluate the immediate function of anterior maxillary implants.

METHODS

One hundred nine patients (42 males and 67 females; average age 55.2 years; range 38-81 years) were followed for 10 years. One hundred eighty-eight implants using nasal and full-length palatine cortical anchorage were inserted in the anterior section of the maxilla together with 188 tilted implants placed posteriorly. Outcome measures were implant success and survival, prosthesis survival, bone loss, and the incidence of biological and mechanical complications. Cumulative success and survival were computed through Kaplan-Meyer product limit estimator (at patient level) and life tables (implant level).

RESULTS

Four patients lost one implant each, giving a 10-year cumulative survival rate of 95.8% and 97.7% using the patient and the implant as the unit of analysis, respectively. The prosthesis survival rate was 98.2%, and the average marginal bone loss was 1.79 mm (1.06 mm). The cumulative success rate was 89.1% and 92.5% using the patient and the implant as the unit of analysis, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Full-arch fixed prosthetic rehabilitations supported by immediately functional implants inserted in the anterior maxilla with bicortical anchorage together with posterior-tilted implants are viable in the long term.

Smoking and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. Smoking also brings negative consequences to oral health, potentially impairing treatment with dental implants. The present review aimed to evaluate the influence of smoking on dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL). Materials and Methods: Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, in addition to meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. Results: The review included 292 publications. Altogether, there were 35,511 and 114,597 implants placed in smokers and in non-smokers, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in smokers had a higher failure risk in comparison with non-smokers (OR 2.402, p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 2.910, p < 0.001), as well as in the mandible (OR 2.866, p < 0.001). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was 0.580 mm (p < 0.001). There was an estimated decrease of 0.001 in OR (p = 0.566) and increase of 0.004 mm (p = 0.279) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up, although without statistical significance. Therefore, there was no clear influence of the follow-up on the effect size (OR) and on MBL MD between groups. Conclusions: Implants placed in smokers present a 140.2% higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-smokers.

Logistic Regression Analysis of the Factors Involved in the Failure of Osseointegration and Survival of Dental Implants with an Internal Connection and Machined Collar: A 6-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Although the long-term success rate of dental implants is currently close to 95%, it is necessary to provide more evidence on the factors related to the failure of osseointegration and survival.

Purpose

To establish the risk factors associated with the failure of osseointegration and survival of dental implants with an internal connection and machined collar and to establish a predictive statistical model.

Materials and Methods

An analytical, retrospective, and observational clinical study of a sample of 297 implants with a follow-up of up to 76 months. Independent variables related to the implant, patient, and surgical and rehabilitative procedures were identified. The dependent variables were failure of osseointegration and failure of implant survival after prosthetic loading. A survival analysis was carried out by applying the Kaplan-Meier model (significance for p < 0.05). The log-rank test and the Cox regression analysis were applied to the factors that presented differences. Finally, the regression logit function was used to determine whether it is possible to predict the risk of implant failure according to the analyzed variables with the data obtained in this study.

Results

The percentages of osseointegration and survival were 97.6 and 97.2%, respectively. For osseointegration, there were significant differences according to gender (p = 0.048), and the risk of nonosseointegration was 85% lower in women. Regarding survival, the Cox analysis converged on only two factors, which were smoking and treatment with anticoagulant drugs. The risk of loss was multiplied by 18.3 for patients smoking more than 10 cigarettes per day and by 28.2 for patients treated with anticoagulants.

Conclusions

The indicated risk factors should be considered, but the analysis of the results is not sufficient to create a predictive model.

Implant failure and associated risk indicators: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate early and late implant loss rates in a sample of patients who had received implant therapy in a university setting as well as patient- and implant-related variables for implant failure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis in a cohort of patients who were treated with implant-supported restorative therapy during the period 2001-2012. Patients were randomly selected from an electronic database and scheduled for an appointment to record subject and implant characteristics. The primary study outcome was implant loss (i.e., early and late implant failure).

RESULTS

A total of 190 patients and 710 implants were included. The mean time in function was 8.2 (SD 2.4) years. Four implants (0.6%) failed in four patients (2.1%) prior to connection of the restoration within a mean period of 1.5 (SD 1.3) months after surgical procedure. Moreover, 17 subjects (8.9%) exhibited late implant failure, representing 26 implants (3.7%), after a mean follow-up of 5 years (SD 2.2) from prosthesis connection. The final multivariable model indicated three factors related to late implant failure: subjects <55 years (OR = 3.62; 95% CI 1.46-10.22; p = .002), smokers/former smokers (OR = 6.25; 95% CI 1.70-17.52; p = .005), and implants with no access to interproximal hygiene (OR = 7.25; 95% CI 2.20-28.25; p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate for early and late implant failure in a sample of 190 patients who had received implant therapy in a university setting was 2.1% and 8.9%, respectively, at subject level. Subjects <55 years and smokers/former smokers as well as implants with inadequate access to interproximal hygiene were significantly associated with late implant failure.

Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological/prosthetic complications of extra-short 4 mm dental implants. An electronic search without language or date restrictions was performed in five databases and in gray literature for articles published until August 2020. Prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical performance of extra-short 4 mm dental implants were included. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. The protocol of this SR was registered in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42019139709. Four studies were included in the present SR. There was no significant difference in implant survival rate (p = 0.75) between extra-short 4 mm and long implants. After 12 months of function, the extra-short implants had a significantly (p = 0.003) lower marginal bone loss (MBL) rate when compared to long implants. Extra-short implants had a lower number of biological and prosthetic complications when compared to long implants. After 12 months of follow-up, extra-short 4 mm dental implants placed in the mandible exhibit satisfactory clinical outcomes concerning implant survival rate and MBL when compared to longer implants, with a low number of biological and prosthetic complications. A higher number of RCTs with longer follow-up is necessary for the future.

Retrospective long-term clinical evaluation of implant-prosthetic rehabilitations after head and neck cancer therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implant-prosthetic rehabilitations in patients with a history of head-neck cancer (HNC), treated with tumor resection without (TR) or with adjuvant radiotherapy (TR/RT). A healthy cohort rehabilitated with the same reconstructive protocols served as control group (C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 28 women and 29 men were considered in the present retrospective study. Participants received 322 implants, finally supporting 79 prosthetic reconstructions. Primary outcome was the assessment of implant and prosthetic survival rates. Furthermore peri-implant soft tissue parameters (attached peri-implant mucosa, AM; modified bleeding and plaque indices, mBI/mPI; probing depth, PD) and prosthetic technical complications were documented. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by means of visual analog scales (VAS) and the Oral Health Impact Profile German 14 form (OHIP G14) were collected. For statistical purposes Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U-Test were adapted.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up of 81.2 ± 50.3 months, implant survival rate was 98.1% (HNC-TR), 98.2% (HNC-TR/RT) and 100.0% (C), respectively (four implants failed in the HNC groups). HNC-TR/RT showed significant higher mPI and mBI compared to C. Within HNC-TR/RT, vestibuloplasty significantly reduced mBI and PD values. No failures occurred at the prosthetic level. Overall, higher VAS scores were reported for bar- compared with Locator-retained prostheses. Furthermore, increased OHIP G14 values resulted for HNC-TR/RT.

CONCLUSIONS

High survival rates on implant and prosthetic level were observed. The use of soft tissue grafts resulted in stabilization of the peri-implant mucosa in irradiated patients. In terms of retention and chewing ability, participants preferred bars over Locator attachments.

Evidence-based analysis of the effect of smoking on osseointegrated implant outcome

The outcome of the osseointegrated implant is influenced by various conditions, one of which is smoking. Literature shows conflicting results for the association between smoking and implant success. Hence, the study was conducted to assess the effects of smoking on survival and marginal bone loss of osseointegrated implants. Literature search of published articles in Medline, Scopus, Ovid, and Journal of Web till June 2020 were analyzed for the determined outcomes. Revman 5.4 software was used for the analysis of the study. Of the 437 articles screened, nine were chosen for review and analysis. Meta-analytic results showed that implant success rate was better in nonsmokers than smokers (odds ratio = 0.43, 95% confidence interval = 0.26-0.72, P < 0.0001). Smoking habit does seem to affect the implant outcome of survival and marginal bone loss negatively.

The Effects of Smoking Cigarettes on Immediate Dental Implant Stability—A Prospective Case Series Study

Background: Smoking tobacco significantly affects the biology of periodontal tissues and contributes to the increased risk of peri-implant diseases. The aim of the study was to investigate whether smoking cigarettes affects the primary and secondary stability of maxillary dental implants, inserted into fresh sockets immediately after extraction. Methods: The study was conducted on 164 patients between the ages of 27–71 years old. 67 individuals smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily and 97 were non-smokers. 190 immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla. Immediate implantations were performed with simultaneous augmentation of the socket with xenogenic bone grafting material. In the posterior region, implants were inserted into the palatal alveolus. The stability of the implants was measured using Insertion Torque Value (ITV) and two types of devices: Periotest (PT) and Osstell (ISQ). Marginal bone loss was evaluated on cone beam computed tomography scans. Results: In an aesthetic area, the PT values at 6 months post-implantation were higher for smokers than non-smokers (p < 0.05), respectively. The ISQ values were significantly lower in smokers compared to non-smokers at 6 months post-implantation (p = 0.0226), respectively. In the posterior region PT values were higher in smokers both on the day of implantation (p = 0.0179), 6 months after surgery (p = 0.0003) as well as 24 months after surgery (p < 0.0001), as compared to non-smokers, respectively. Smokers revealed lower ISQ values than non-smokers (p = 0.0047) on the day of implantation, as well as 6 months after implantation (p = 0.0002), respectively. There were no significant differences in marginal bone loss after 18 months of loading between smokers and non-smokers in the aesthetic, as well as posterior regions (p > 0.05). ITV measurements were lower in smokers than non-smokers in the aesthetic (16.3 vs. 17.5 Ncm) and posterior area (16.8 vs. 17.9 Ncm). Conclusions: This study indicate that smoking cigarettes has a negative effect on the stability of immediate implants in the maxilla. Primary stability of immediate implants may be lower in the posterior area of the maxilla in smokers when compared to non-smokers, which may eliminate smokers from immediate implants in this region. Secondary stability of immediate implants may be lower in both the aesthetic and posterior areas in smokers compared to non-smokers, which may encourage the postponement of final crowns delivery at 6 months post op and the extension of the occlusaly temporary crowns use in some smoker cases.

Increasing Levels of Smoking may Increase the Relative Risk of Dental Implant Failure

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Levels of smoking and dental implants failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Naseri R, Yaghini J, Feizi A. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47(4):518-528.

SOURCE OF FUNDING

Information not available.

TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis of data.

The impact of a change in classification criteria on the prevalence of peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is a frequent finding but estimates of its prevalence vary widely. This may be due to the wide variety of disease definitions. In 2017 the World Workshop on Periodontal and Peri-implant Diseases and Conditions established new criteria for disease definitions. The aim of this study is to assess the potential impact of a new definition on the future reporting of peri-implant disease.

METHODS

Data from a 2015 report of peri-implant prevalence were examined using the new diagnostic criteria. This cross-sectional study was performed on 95 patients with 220 implants who had their implants placed between 1998 and 2003. An examiner masked to the previous diagnosis examined the radiographs and patient data to make a diagnosis based on 3 mm of bone loss from the expected level of bone. This reanalysis was used to calculate the prevalence of peri-implant disease and generate new relative risk indicators.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time for the patients was 10.9 years. Using the 2017 criteria, peri-implant mucositis was found in 35.3% of the implants and 52.2% of the subjects, and peri-implantitis occurred in 8.7% of the implants and 15.2% of the subjects. This constituted a drop in peri-implantitis at both patient and implant level of nearly 50% from the prior analysis. Smoking at time of implant placement emerged as a new risk factor in this analysis that was not identified in the prior analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The new diagnostic criteria significantly reduce the reported prevalence of peri-implantitis and bring new risk factors into focus.

Marginal Bone Level Changes and Oral Health Impact Profile (14) Score of Smokers Treated by Mandibular Mini Implant Overdentures: A 5-Year Follow-up Study

Objectives  Studies considered edentulous patients having smoking habit as a compromised oral condition. This research examined the value of using mini implant mandibular overdenture to maintain long-term satisfactory levels of oral health quality of life and marginal vertical bone loss.

Materials and Methods  Twenty-nine edentulous patients with smoking habit received four mini implants in the mandible loaded by overdentures. The present study monitored patients radiographically for vertical bone loss after (1 month, 1, 3, and 5 years) of treatment. Patients were also evaluated by oral health impact profile 14 (OHIP-14) pretreatment and at 1 and 5 years of treatment.

Statistical Analysis  Repeated measure analysis of variance with Bonferroni’s test as a post-hoc test was used to see the difference among time points. Independent sample t -tests were used to compare between anterior and posterior mini implant positions after 5 years of follow-up. OHIP-14 questionnaire was analyzed by Wilcoxon signed ranks for pairwise comparisons at different evaluation times. A Holm-Bonferroni correction method was used to control the familywise error rate.

Results  The mean of the bone height changes showed a significant difference between 1-month data and all other evaluation intervals while no significance was calculated among other evaluation intervals. Bone loss of the mini implants placed anteriorly was less than those placed posteriorly with a statistically significant difference. A significant reduction in the OHIP-14 score levels was observed between pretreatment and both 1 and 5 years of treatment. No significance was seen between the first and fifth year after treatment.

Conclusion  Mini implant overdenture could maintain satisfactory marginal bone level changes and oral health quality of life for patients with smoking habit after 5-year follow-up period.

Does HIV infection affect the survival of dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Immunosuppression and coinfections associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection pose a relative contraindication for dental implant therapy. However, although implants have been placed in patients with HIV with reasonable success, how HIV infection affects their survival is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was to analyze the data on the survival of dental implants in patients with HIV.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search for relevant articles published up to November 2019 was performed in PubMed/Medline and Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adopted for the conduct of the systematic review. The most pertinent data were extracted and pooled for qualitative and quantitative analyses with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was analyzed by using I-squared statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 8 studies involving 411 individuals with HIV and 1109 implants were included in the meta-analysis. The mean follow-up period was 2.8 years. A pooled estimate of 95% of implant survival rate with 95% confidence interval(92% to 96%) was noted. Heterogeneity across the 8 studies was found to be 41% with moderate true variability.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review demonstrated that HIV infection does not pose a serious threat to implant survival on short-term evaluation, but the evidence is of low quality.

Are There Contraindications for Placing Dental Implants?

There are few absolute contraindications to dental implant placement. Relative contraindications include cognitive decline, American Society of Anesthesiology patient status IV or higher categories, or medical conditions that may jeopardize the life or lifespan of the patient. Precautions for placing dental implants should be viewed with respect to the evidence-based exposures that can contribute to risk of failure, including but not limited to local, behavioral, and medical factors. Risk for dental implant failure increases in association with (1) past history of periodontal disease, (2) bruxism, (3) smoking, and (4) radiation therapy.