Relationship between Systemic Bone Mineral Density and Local Bone Quality as Effectors of Dental Implant Survival

Holahan, Christopher M.; Wiens, Jennifer L.; Weaver, Amy L.; Assad, Daniel; Koka, Sreenivas

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00206.x

Cited by 37 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Three other studies [15-17] did not find any significant differences for implantation success neither for osseointegration quality between osteoporotic and control groups. Holahan et al [16] found that osteoporosis did not show any correlation to local jaw bone quality, but when it was, set subjectively by surgeon, it highly correlated with implantation success (P < 0.01). It should be noted that Mozzati et al [15] combined many different implantation methods, such as immediate function loading, immediate implantation and sinus lifting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are several different osteoporosis aetiology theories, asserting the lack of oestrogen, calcium circulation disorders, thyroid dysfunction as main causing factor [55,57,58]. Due to the demonstrated effect of oestrogen insufficiency, in many studies only post-menopausal females were included [15,16,19,24,26]. However, in none of the studies laboratorial hormonal examinations were performed, only stating that post-menopausal women are in higher risk for osteoporosis without individual examinations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

General Diseases Influence on Peri-Implantitis Development: a Systematic Review

Guobis¹,

Pacauskienė²,

Astramskaitė

2016

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo systematically review the influence of systemic diseases or medications used in their treatment on the dental implant therapy success.Material and MethodsThe search strategy was implemented on the National Library of Medicine database (MEDLINE) (Ovid) and EMBASE electronic databases between January 2006 and January 2016. Human studies with available English articles analysing the relationship between dental implant therapy success and systemic diseases, such as diabetes mellitus, AIDS/HIV, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, Crohn’s disease, cardiovascular diseases, scleroderma, Sjögren’s syndrome, lichen planus, ectodermal dysplasia, post-transplantation status, were included in present review according to the PRISMA guidelines. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO system with the code CRD42016033662.ResultsPresent review included forty one retrospective and prospective follow-up studies, case-control studies, case report series and cohort studies. Despite some limitations this study reveals positive results of implantation in most systemic conditions that should be interpreted with caution. Influence of cardiovascular diseases on the dental implantation success should be explored deeply, because of controversial results and likelihood of comorbidity expressed by a history of cardiovascular diseases and periodontitis. There is only a weak relationship with bone density in osteoporosis and implant failure. All the other diseases did not show significant effect on implantation success.ConclusionsRecent studies with low strength of evidence and controversy show that systemic diseases may have potential effect on the success of implantation, but further detailed studies are needed to provide these findings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

General Diseases Influence on Peri-Implantitis Development: a Systematic Review

Guobis¹,

Pacauskienė²,

Astramskaitė

2016

JOMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be due to the poor bone quality in which some of the implants were placed. Some authors suggest that lower quality of bone is associated with a higher failure rate [31] which is true in areas like the posterior maxilla or augmented bone [32,33] so it would be expectable that the results of this SR presented higher failure rates when comparing to standard implants placed in native bone. However, two recently published meta-analysis reported annual failure rates between 2 and 3% [34,35] that are well within the values obtained in this systematic review for short implants and standard implants in augmented bone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review to compare the survival rates between short implants (length < 10 mm) versus standard-length implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted in grafted bone. As secondary outcomes, marginal bone loss and survival rates of the implant supported prostheses were also analysed. Materials and methods Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared both techniques were searched on three electronic databases till June 2016, a manual search was performed on the bibliography of the collected articles, and the authors were contacted for additional references. The estimates of the interventions were expressed in relative risk (RR), mean implant survival rates and mean differences in marginal bone. Results Eight RCTs were included in this study. From a total of 458 short implants, 15 failed (mean survival rates = 96.7%), While from 488 regular implants, 13 failed (mean survival rates = 97.3%). The technique did not significantly affect: the implant failure rate (P > 0.05), with RR of 1.34 (95% CI 0.67-2.87), the mean differences of marginal bone loss (P = 0.18; MD − 0.04 mm [− 0.10; 0.02] 95% CI), at loading or prosthesis failures rates (RR:0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.41). The mean differences of marginal bone at 1 year follow-up (post loading) presented significant marginal changes in the short implant group (P = 0.002; MD − 0.10 mm [− 0.16; − 0.03] 95% CI) although a significant high heterogeneity was found between groups. Conclusions This systematic review suggests no difference between both techniques in the treatment of atrophic arches. However, more long-term RCTs are needed to evaluate the predictability at the long run. Clinical relevance The use of short implants might be considered an alternative treatment, since it usually requires fewer surgical phases and tends to be a more affordable option.

show abstract

“…[4][5][6] Interest in the impact of local factors on implant survival has additionally been the focus of many reports that identify bone quality and quantity, as well as implant stability data. [7][8][9] However, given such a low incidence of device failure, it can be appreciated that large numbers of implants should be followed for long periods of time to best discern meaningful associations.…”

Section: Commentary and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Location and Radiotherapy are the only Factors Linked to 2-Year Implant Failure

Carr

2010

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationship between Systemic Bone Mineral Density and Local Bone Quality as Effectors of Dental Implant Survival

Cited by 37 publications

References 7 publications

General Diseases Influence on Peri-Implantitis Development: a Systematic Review

General Diseases Influence on Peri-Implantitis Development: a Systematic Review

Short implants versus bone grafting and standard-length implants placement: a systematic review

Implant Location and Radiotherapy are the only Factors Linked to 2-Year Implant Failure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About