Implants in disabled patients: a review and update

Superhydrophilic Nanotextured Surfaces for Dental Implants: Influence of Early Saliva Contamination and Wet Storage

Hydrophilic and nanotextured surfaces for dental implants have been reported as relevant properties for early osseointegration. However, these surface characteristics are quite sensitive to oral interactions. Therefore, this pilot study aimed to investigate the superficial alterations caused on hydrophilic nanotubular surfaces after early human saliva interaction. Titanium disks were treated using an anodization protocol followed by reactive plasma application in order to achieve nanotopography and hydrophilicity, additionally; surfaces were stored in normal atmospheric oxygen or wet conditioning. Following, samples were interacted with saliva for 10 min and analyzed regarding physical–chemical properties and cellular viability. Saliva interaction did not show any significant influence on morphological characteristics, roughness measurements and chemical composition; however, hydrophilicity was statistically altered compromising this feature when the samples were stored in common air. Cellular viability tested with pre-osteoblasts cell line (MC3T3-E1) reduced significantly at 48 h on the samples without wet storage after saliva contamination. The applied wet-storage methodology appears to be effective in maintaining properties such as hydrophilicity during saliva interaction. In conclusion, saliva contamination might impair important properties of hydrophilic nanotubular surfaces when not stored in wet conditions, suggesting the need of saliva-controlled sites for oral application of hydrophilic surfaces and/or the use of modified-package methods associated with their wet storage.

Influence of saliva interaction on surface properties manufactured for rapid osseointegration in dental implants

Surface treatments are designed to promote modified implant surfaces with positive interactions with the surrounding living tissues. However, the inadvertent early contact of these surfaces with oral fluids during surgery may lead to undesired conditions affecting osseointegration. This study aimed to investigate the possible alterations in the physico-chemical properties of modified-surfaces caused by early saliva exposure. Titanium (Ti) surfaces were exposed to three different samples of human saliva and later analyzed for protein adhesion, physico-chemical surface alterations, and osteogenic cell-viability. The results indicated that surface roughness was the most significant factor influencing saliva protein adsorption; moreover, hydrophilic surfaces had critically lost their characteristics after contact with saliva. Decreased cell viability was observed in cultures after contact with saliva. Early contact with saliva might negatively influence modified surface properties and local cell viability. Careful surgical insertion of implants with hydrophilic surfaces is recommended, particularly in sites where saliva interaction is prone to occur.

Is Down syndrome a risk factor or contraindication for dental implants? A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Whether oral rehabilitation with dental implants in patients with Down syndrome leads to an increased complication rate is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of dental implants placed in patients with Down syndrome and whether the condition is a risk factor or contraindication for dental implant placement.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Searches were conducted in 6 databases, including the non-peer-reviewed literature, up to February 2021 by 2 independent reviewers according to established inclusion and exclusion criteria to answer this question: Is Down syndrome a risk factor or contraindication for oral rehabilitation with dental implants?

RESULTS

A total of 655 studies were initially found in the databases. Five were included in this systematic review, all of which were observational studies. A total of 50 patients with 186 implants were evaluated, with a reported effectiveness of 79.1%. The risk of bias assessment determined that 3 of the 5 studies had a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with dental implants in patients with Down syndrome is a suitable option, but more complications are to be expected than with patients without this condition. Controlled studies with better methodological design and less risk of bias should be developed to improve the scientific evidence for the treatment of these patients.

Dental implant care and trouble among dependent patients based on the questionnaire survey among Japanese dental practitioners

Background

Self-care and professional care of implants may prove difficult for elderly people who require nursing care. However, the actual state of care and problems remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the actual state of implant problems in elderly people living in their own home or in a nursing home who received visiting dental treatment.

Methods

We mailed questionnaire survey forms to 2339 representatives or specialists who were members of the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, the Japanese Society of Gerodontology or the Japan Prosthodontic Society. We narrowed down the respondents to those who provided visiting dental treatment, and analyzed the actual state of implants observed during visiting dental treatment (type, care, problems, countermeasures, etc.).

Results

Of the 924 dentists who responded to the questionnaire survey, 291 (22%) provided visiting dental treatment. While the majority of implant types encountered in the previous 12 months were root-form implants, there were still a certain number of blade and subperiosteal implants. Daily implant care involved mostly cleaning with a toothbrush + auxiliary tools. The most frequent implant problems encountered in the past were difficulty in cleaning and peri-implantitis. Medication and antiphlogistic treatment were most frequently adopted as countermeasures to implant problems, followed by observation. When we classified the results into those for the dentists who provided implant treatment and those for the dentists who did not, we found that many of the dentists who did not provide implant treatment opted for observation or medication, while those who provided implant treatment also implemented removal of superstructure, retightening of screws, repair and so forth.

Conclusions

We found that many of the implant troubles encountered by dentists who provided visiting dental care were difficulty in cleaning or peri-implantitis, and that the actions taken against these troubles varied depending on the experience of the dentist performing the implant treatment. Our study also revealed that dentists who provide visiting dental care need to acquire knowledge and skills of implant treatment, to have actions prepared in case they encounter such cases, or to closely coordinate with dentists who specialize in implants.

Outpatient dental care for people with disabilities under general anaesthesia in Switzerland

BACKGROUND

Life expectancy of people with permanent disabilities has increased. The dental care of these vulnerable patients is one of the greatest challenges for the dentist and the dental team due to limited or non-existent cooperation and the associated lack of health competence. In order to be able to provide safe and acceptable, quality dental treatment without psychological and physical stress for these patients, it is therefore necessary to resort to sedation or general anaesthesia (GA) under medical supervision. The aim of the analysis is to highlight the need for dental treatment performed under GA for people with disabilities and the associated indications and treatment patterns.

METHODS

Ten-year retrospective analysis of outpatient dental care under GA for people with disabilities.

RESULTS

Of all adult patients (n = 221) who attended the GA pre-assessment, 69.7% (n = 154) received dental treatment under GA based on the clinical findings or in cases of suspected pain. Most patients received one GA. A total of 205 dental treatment sessions were performed under GA mostly for conservative (n = 442, 52%) and surgical (n = 389, 45.8%) procedures. Endodontic treatment (n = 19, 2.2%) was rare. The failure rate related to all teeth in need of treatment (n = 850) was 5.1% (n = 43), in most cases due to secondary caries (n = 40; 93.0%). Patients were enrolled in an annual recall for dental examination and prophylaxis without GA. Non-compliant patients for whom oral hygiene was impossible received a periodic GA.

CONCLUSION

There is a high need of people with disabilities for dental treatment under GA. Main indications for treatment under GA are dental complaints, pain or suspected pain. Dental care can be successful if, for the benefit of patients with special needs, all carers cooperate closely. Caregivers have to be trained in nutrition control as well as in oral hygiene. These factors in conjunction help to prevent dental emergencies.

Metallothioneins in Failure of Dental Implants and Periodontitis Down Syndrome Patients

BACKGROUND

Sometimes dental implants seem to be the only therapeutic alternative for the oral rehabilitation of patients with Down syndrome, given that they usually lose all their teeth early due to suffering aggressive periodontitis and they do not usually have the skills required to wear removable prostheses. However, the evolution of dental implants in these patients shows very adverse results. It is possible that basal genetic alterations, or at least some characteristics of these, may underlie these clinical results. The metabolic pathway of metallothioneins, molecules with an important influence on bone metabolism, could be one of the said alterations.

AIMS

To determine whether the expression of metallothioneins (MTs) and their metabolic pathway may be identified and related to the periodontitis and lack of osseointegration of dental implants in Down syndrome patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective study of cases and controls by comparing patients with Down syndrome, periodontal disease, and implant failure (four patients, test group) with patients with Down syndrome, without periodontal disease, and without implant failure after two years of following (seven patients, control group), by extracting peripheral blood at the time of the dental examination to extract RNA and its subsequent processing in relation to gene expression of the metabolic pathway of metallothioneins.

RESULTS

The results identified low expression in the group of patients with periodontal disease and implant failure of genes MT1E, MT1H, MT1X, MT1A, MT1B, MT1C, MT1L, MT2A, MT1M, and MT1G.

CONCLUSIONS

The low MT1 and MT2 gene expression seems to be related to the onset of periodontal disease and implant rejection in Down syndrome patients, although more data are required to confirm whether this relationship is due to one of the two conditions, to both independently, or to the two jointly-this last option being indicated by our current study.

A preliminary report on dental implant condition among dependent elderly based on the survey among Japanese dental practitioners

Background

The objective of this study was to ascertain the situation relevant to implants, the status of oral self-care, the status of aftercare provided by the dentist who placed the implant, and the usage status of the implant card, in homebound or institutionalized older adults who are receiving home-visit dental care due to the inability to visit a dental clinic on their own.

Methods

A survey questionnaire was sent by post mail to 2339 people who are representative members or dental specialists belonging to any of the following three academic societies: Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, Japanese Society of Gerodontology, and Japan Prosthodontic Society. The survey questions asked were about provision/no provision of implant treatment, provision/no provision of home-visit dental care, the situation of patients after implant treatment, the situation of implants in the context of home-visit dental care, and the usage status and recognition of the implant card.

Results

No less than 30% of the dentists had patients who were admitted to the hospital or became homebound after receiving implant treatment at their clinic. Twenty-two percent of the dentists had been consulted about the implants. Dentists who continued to provide post-operative implant care through home-visit dental care accounted for approximately 80%. On the other hand, however, 40% of the dentists did not know the post-implantation status of their implant patients. Of the patients receiving home-visit dental care, approximately 3% had implants (identified mainly by visual inspection). It was found that more than 50% of the dentists offering implant treatment did not use the implant card, and even in cases where it was used, most of the cards were not in the standardized format.

Conclusions

Within the limitation of low response rate to the questionnaire in this preliminary study, we concluded that many of practitioners including specialists indicated the need of universal record of implant for dependent elderly cares.

Implant retention systems for implant-retained overdentures

Implant retained overdentures are being increasingly utilised in both general and specialist practice to rehabilitate patients with missing teeth, particularly those that are edentate. This article aims to inform the reader of a variety of retention systems that are available to retain an implant overdenture and to understand how these systems work, their advantages and disadvantages and to outline some of the clinical and treatment planning considerations involved in selecting the most appropriate retention system for patients.

Prognosis following dental implant treatment under general anesthesia in patients with special needs

Background

This study retrospectively investigated outcomes following dental implantation in patients with special needs who required general anesthesia to enable treatment.

Methods

Patients underwent implant treatment under general anesthesia at the Clinic for the Disabled in Seoul National University Dental Hospital between January 2004 and June 2017. The study analyzed medical records and radiographs. Implant survival rates were calculated by applying criteria for success or failure.

Results

Of 19 patients in the study, 8 were males and 11 were females, with a mean age of 32.9 years. The patients included 11 with mental retardation, 3 with autism, 2 with cerebral palsy, 2 with schizophrenia, and 1 with a brain disorder; 2 patients also had seizure disorders. All were incapable of oral self-care due to serious cognitive impairment and could not cooperate with normal dental treatment. A total of 27 rounds of general anesthesia and 1 round of intravenous sedation were performed for implant surgery. Implant placement was performed in 3 patients whose prosthesis records could not be found, while 3 other patients had less than 1 year of follow-up after prosthetic treatment. When the criteria for implant success or failure were applied in 13 remaining patients, 3 implant failures occurred in 59 total treatments. The cumulative survival rate of implants over an average of 43.3 months (15-116 months) was 94.9%.

Conclusions

For patients with severe cognitive impairment who are incapable of oral self-care, implant treatment under general anesthesia showed a favorable prognosis.

Oral Rehabilitation with Implant-Retained Overdenture in a Patient with Down Syndrome

Down syndrome, known as trisomy 21, is the most common chromosomal disorder. The disorder affects mental and systemic development as well as oral structure, including dental anomalies, high susceptibility of periodontal disease, and poor quality of alveolar bone. This report presents a case of dental rehabilitation by means of dental implants of a patient with Down syndrome. Two titanium dental implants were placed in the maxilla, and three titanium dental implants were installed in the mandible. One implant was lost during the osseointegration period. The prosthetic rehabilitation was performed with implant-retained maxillary and mandibular overdentures with the Locator attachment system. After a 2-year follow-up period, the patient was doing well, and all implants were clinically stable with no signs of bone loss or inflammation. The present study emphasizes that implant-retained overdentures with Locator attachment system could be a therapeutic option even for patients with Down syndrome. This therapy prevents crestal bone loss around the implants, improves functional and esthetic outcomes, and provides optimum oral hygiene for patients with mild mental impairment. Careful patient selection and education of patients and caregivers are essential considerations for a successful and safe treatment with dental implants in Down syndrome patients.

Prosthodontic Rehabilitation for a Patient with Down Syndrome: A Clinical Report

Patients with Down syndrome can present with a variety of oral manifestations such as hypodontia, periodontal disease, premature tooth loss, reduced salivary flow, crowding of teeth in both arches, and decreased occlusal vertical dimension. The intellectual ability of people with Down syndrome varies widely. They present with a mild-to-moderate intellectual disability that restricts their ability to communicate and adjust to their environment, which can add complexity in the overall dental treatment. There is little information in the literature regarding the prosthodontic rehabilitation for patients with Down syndrome in combination with dental implant placement. An implant-assisted removable partial dental prosthesis can be a cost-effective treatment alternative for carefully chosen patients with Down syndrome. This article presents the treatment of a 44-year-old male patient with Down syndrome and a moderate intellectual disability who presented with congenital and acquired tooth loss with significant occlusal discrepancies. The treatment included a prosthodontic approach that used a single dental implant, which will be described and illustrated in this article.

Four years survival and marginal bone loss of implants in patients with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) after 4 years in patients with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy, compared with a healthy control group.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The case group comprises 102 implants in 19 patients (71 cerebral palsy, 21 Down syndrome), and the control group comprises 70 implants in 22 healthy patients. One implant per patient was selected (n = 41 implants) to take clustering effects into account. MBL was measured using two panoramic radiographs (after surgery and 4 years later). Lagervall-Jansson's Index was used. Statistics used are chi-squared test and Haberman's post hoc test. p Value is significant at <0.05.

RESULTS

MBL was significantly higher in the cases in all samples (p < 0.001) and when one implant was selected per patient (p < 0.05). More implants were lost in the cases (p < 0.01), especially those with a higher MBL (p < 0.01). MBL (p < 0.05) and implant loss (p < 0.01) increased with age in the cases. The three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) showed higher MBL (p < 0.05). Down syndrome had a higher MBL than cerebral palsy (entire sample p < 0.0001, one implant per patient p < 0.05). All patients with Down syndrome saw some damage to bone support (entire sample p < 0.0001; one implant per patient p < 0.05). Implant loss occurred only in Down syndrome (p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

MBL and implant loss 4 years after placement are higher in neuropsychiatric disabilities. Down syndrome has a higher risk of MBL and implant loss; therefore, special precautions should be taken when deciding on treatment for these patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As a consequence of this pilot study, professionals should be very cautious in placing implants in patients with Down syndrome.