Evaluation of biologic implant success parameters in type 2 diabetic glycemic control patients versus healthy patients: A meta‐analysis

Lagunov, Victor L; Sun, Jing; George, Roy

doi:10.1111/jicd.12478

Cited by 28 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, edentulism becomes one of the main consequences for these patients [ 6 , 8 ]. Diabetic patients with uncontrolled glycemia have been shown to have worse results than those of controlled DM2 and nondiabetic patients, such as a higher incidence of implant failure [ 21 , 32 ]. In addition to the fact that the disease is characterized by microvascular complications, tissue damage, and a higher risk of infection, these factors greatly influence dental treatment [ 5 , 8 , 41 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The association between elevated HbA1c levels and increased marginal bone loss had a statistically significant result in a different prospective study by Aguilar-Salvatierra et al [16]. However, in a recent meta-analysis of seven prospective studies [17], Lagunov et al observed that PD, BOP, and marginal bone loss showed a significantly higher increase in type 2 DM patients as compared to healthy patients, after a period of 12 months, independently from the level of glycemic control.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Influence of Diabetes on Implant Failure and Peri-Implant Diseases: A Retrospective Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Diabetes is an important modifying factor of periodontitis, but its association with peri-implant diseases has not been fully explored and the existing literature reports controversial results. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the influence of diabetes on peri-implantitis and implant failure. Smoking status, history of periodontal disease, presence of diabetes, diabetes type, therapy and glycaemia levels were collected in a total of 204 subjects treated with 929 implants, with a mean follow-up time of 5.7 ± 3.82 years after loading. Odds ratio (OR) for diabetes as a direct cause of peri-implantitis and implant failure were calculated, adjusted for smoking status and history of periodontitis. Nineteen patients were diabetic and most of them presented a good control of the disease at the time of surgery. The overall patient-level prevalence of peri-implantitis was 11.3%. Among diabetic patients, one developed peri-implantitis, whereas one experienced multiple implant failures. The calculated ORs, adjusted for smoking status and periodontitis, were not statistically significant. The results revealed no association between diabetes and peri-implantitis or implant failure coherently with the existing scientific literature. The actual influence of hyperglycemia on implant failure is still uncertain and new studies with larger cohorts of patients are needed.

show abstract

“…Several factors would influence the bone remodeling around dental implants, including the blood glucose and physical illnesses of patients, the position of fixture and the major surface treatment of the implants [10]. The marginal bone loss (MBL) in diabetes patients is greater than that in nondiabetic individuals, regardless of whether the former group is glycemic controlled [11]. The higher MBL in T2DM patients could show the impaired bone condition around implants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic variables related to implants with simultaneous grafts among type 2 diabetic patients treated with different hypoglycemic medications: a retrospective study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The influence of different hypoglycemic agents on peri-implant variables among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients is still unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the radiographic marginal bone loss and clinical parameters around implants in patients using different hypoglycemic agents. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, the dental implant records of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients who met the inclusion criteria were collected. The patients using only single medication as follows: insulin, metformin, or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) drugs, were grouped according to their medication. These patients received implant placement with the same initial status, and all the prosthesis restorations were cement-retained ceramic crowns. The peri-implant marginal bone levels were evaluated by periapical radiographs immediately after implant placement and at 1 and 2-year follow-up visits. The baseline characteristics were compared among groups. The peri-implant radiographic marginal bone loss and clinical parameters were preliminarily compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test, and then the covariates were controlled by covariance analysis. Bonferroni post hoc adjustment test was performed for the multiple comparisons. Results After a review of more than 7000 medical records, a total of 150 patients with 308 implants at 1-year follow-up were assessed. The peri-implant marginal bone loss in the GLP-1 drug group was significantly smaller than the insulin group and metformin group (P < 0.01). The radiographic bone loss in the metformin group was higher than the insulin group (P < 0.05). Some of these included patients were lost to follow-up. Only 74 patients with 129 implants completed the 2-year follow-up. The radiographic bone loss in the metformin group was still higher than the insulin group (P < 0.05) and GLP-1 group (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the BOP (+) and the mean PD among groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions The radiographic variables were not exactly the same among the patients with different hypoglycemic agents at both the 1 and 2-year follow-ups. After ensuring consistency in baseline characteristics, the positive effect of GLP-1 drugs on peri-implant bone remodeling may be no less than insulin or metformin. More studies are needed to verify the direct effect of these drugs on peri-implant bone. Clinical trial registration number ChiCTR2000034211 (retrospectively registered).

show abstract

Evaluation of biologic implant success parameters in type 2 diabetic glycemic control patients versus healthy patients: A meta‐analysis

Cited by 28 publications

References 45 publications

Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Survival rate and peri-implant evaluation of immediately loaded dental implants in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Influence of Diabetes on Implant Failure and Peri-Implant Diseases: A Retrospective Study

Clinical and radiographic variables related to implants with simultaneous grafts among type 2 diabetic patients treated with different hypoglycemic medications: a retrospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About