Longitudinal assessment of clinical and radiographic periimplant status around narrow and regular diameter implants placed in cigarette‐smokers and nonsmokers

Abstract

Background To date, no clinical investigation has assessed the clinical and radiographic indices around narrow diameter implants (NDIs) and regular diameter implants (RDIs) in individuals with cigarette smoking habit and nonsmokers. Objective To estimate and compare the clinical and radiographic indices around NDIs (< 3.3 mm) and RDIs placed in cigarette smokers (CS) and nonsmokers (NS). Materials and Methods Eighty‐six patients requiring implant surgery in the anterior mandible were divided into two groups (39 CS and 43 NS). Patients were further categorized into two subgroups on the basis of implant diameter: (a) patients with NDIs (3.3 mm) and (b) patients with RDIs (4.1 mm). Clinical indices evaluating plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD) were recorded at 18 and 36 months of follow‐up. Digital periapical radiographs were studied to evaluate crestal bone levels (CBL) incorporating in a specialized software and examined on a calibrated computer display screen with the help of an image analyzer. Results The mean age of patients in CS group and NS group was 44.6 and 42.5 years, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall mean scores of PI, PD, and CBL around NDIs and RDIs among CS and NS patients at 18 and 36 months of follow‐up. However, there was a statistically significant difference only in the overall mean BOP around NDIs and RDIs among CS and NS patients at 18 and 36 months of follow‐up. Conclusion The findings of the current study suggests that NDIs can show reliable clinical stability and radiographic bone levels as RDIs placed in CS and NS, with the support of strict oral hygiene protocols.

Assessment of advanced glycation end products in the peri‐implant sulcular fluid among moderate cigarette‐smokers and nonsmokers with peri‐implantitis

“…[13][14][15][16] Besides poor oral hygiene, habitual tobacco-smoking in the form of cigarettes and waterpipe-tobacco are well-renowned risk factor of peri-implant diseases. 13,[17][18][19][20][21][22] According to ArRejaie et al 18 levels of destructive inflammatory cytokines (matrix-metallo-proteinase-9 and IL-1beta) are significantly higher in the peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) of cigarette-smokers compared with never-smokers (patients that never used tobacco in any form). These cytokines have been reported to contribute towards worsening the peri-implant soft tissue plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and probing depth; and increasing crestal bone loss (CBL) on the mesial and distal surfaces of the implant.…”

“…A dilemma in clinical implant dentistry and related research is the prevention and treatment of dental implant‐related diseases 13‐16 . Besides poor oral hygiene, habitual tobacco‐smoking in the form of cigarettes and waterpipe‐tobacco are well‐renowned risk factor of peri‐implant diseases 13,17‐22 . According to ArRejaie et al 18 levels of destructive inflammatory cytokines (matrix‐metallo‐proteinase‐9 and IL‐1beta) are significantly higher in the peri‐implant sulcular fluid (PISF) of cigarette‐smokers compared with never‐smokers (patients that never used tobacco in any form).…”

Primary stability of narrow‐diameter dental implants with a multiple condensing thread design placed in bone with and without osteotomes: An in vitro study

“…6 Other variables that may affect PS encompass implant dimensions (length and diameter), surface characteristics (moderately rough or smooth), and number of threads on the implant surface. 3,[7][8][9][10][11] With regard to implant diameter, studies [12][13][14][15] have shown that narrow-(<3.3 mm) and standard-(4.1 mm) diameter dental implants can remain functionally stable in smokers and medically compromised patient in a manner similar to systemically healthy nonsmokers. However, achievement of PS is often challenging when implants are placed in type-IV bone (soft bone), which usually comprises the posterior maxillae.…”

Evaluation of the implant diameter on the initial-stability of narrow- and standard-diameter implants placed in simulated Type-I and Type-IV bone-blocks

“… 6 An agreement regarding the absolute diameter of NDIs is yet to be reached; however, in indexed literature, dental implant with a diameter of up to 3.5 mm are considered NDIs. 7 , 8 According to Ma M et al 9 NDIs can successfully support single-tooth supported implants in the posterior maxillae in a way similar to regular or SDIs. Moreover, 3-year prosthesis success rates for NDIs and SDIs have been reported as 89.25% and 96.55%, respectively.…”