Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Andrade CAS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479496 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOrofacial cleft, one of the most common congenital deformities, presents with a plethora of defects, subjecting the patient to a multitude of treatments from a young age. Among the oral hard tissue problems, absence of a maxillary permanent tooth in the cleft region either due to congenital absence or extraction due to compromised prognosis is a common finding. Conventionally, the missing tooth is replaced using a removable or fixed partial denture; however, the treatment modality does not satisfactorily meet patient expectations. The most recent decade has seen increasing use of dental implants in the cleft region; however, the outcome of an immediately loaded dental implant is still elusive for orofacial cleft patients.ObjectiveThis protocol is for a single-arm clinical trial aimed at determining the treatment outcome of immediately loaded dental implants in patients with a nonsyndromic orofacial cleft.MethodsPatients meeting the set criteria will be sequentially enrolled until a sample size of 30 dental implants is met and will undergo the proposed treatment according to the predecided protocol. All patients will be followed up at the designated time intervals to record various clinical and radiographic parameters. Implant success will be defined based on the criteria elucidated by Misch et al in the Pisa, Italy Consensus. A quality-of-life assessment questionnaire will also be recorded at the end of patient's follow-up to determine their acceptance of the treatment.ResultsA total of 30 dental implants will be placed in patients with a nonsyndromic orofacial cleft. Obtained results will be statistically analyzed to determine the treatment outcomes and success.ConclusionsThis study will help determine the feasibility of immediately loaded dental implants in compromised bone sites such as those presented in cleft patients and will help in generating findings that can be used to fill the lacunae currently present in the holistic treatment of cleft patients.Trial registrationClinical Trial Registry of India CTRI/2020/09/027997; http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/showallp.php?mid1=47659&EncHid=&userName=dental%20implants.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/25244.

Project description:Although neurophysiological and psychophysical proof of osseoperception is accumulating, histomorphometric evidence for the neural mechanisms of functional compensation following immediate and delayed implant loading is still lacking. For this randomized split-mouth study, six mongrel dogs randomly received one of four treatment protocols at 36 implant-recipient sites over 16 weeks (third maxillary incisor, third and fourth mandibular premolar): immediate implant placement and immediate loading (IIP+IL); delayed implant placement and delayed loading (DIP+DL); delayed implant placement and immediate loading (DIP+IL); and natural extraction socket healing (control). Histomorphometry was performed in the peri-implant bone and soft tissues within 300 µm around the implants. Immunocytochemistry and transmission electron microscopy were used to confirm the presence of neural structures and to reveal their ultrastructural characteristics, respectively. Myelinated nerve fibres densely populated the peri-implant crestal gingival and apical regions, although they were also identified in the woven bone and in the osteons near the implant threads. Compared with the control group in the mandible, the group that received IIP+IL showed a higher innervation (in N⋅mm⁻², 5.94 ± 1.12 vs. 3.15 ± 0.63, P<0.001) and smaller fibre diameter (in µm, 1.37 ± 0.05 vs. 1.64 ± 0.13, P=0.016), smaller axon diameter (in µm, 0.89 ± 0.05 vs. 1.24 ± 0.10, P=0.009) and g-ratio (0.64 ± 0.04 vs. 0.76 ± 0.05, P<0.001) in the middle region around the implants. Compared with DIP+IL in the mandible, IIP+IL had a higher nerve density (in N⋅mm⁻², 13.23 ± 2.54 vs. 9.64 ± 1.86, P=0.027), greater fibre diameter (in µm, 1.32 ± 0.02 vs. 1.20 ± 0.04, P=0.021), greater axon diameter (in µm, 0.92 ± 0.01 vs. 0.89 ± 0.03, P=0.035) and lower g-ratio (0.69 ± 0.01 vs. 0.74 ± 0.01, P=0.033) in the apical region around the implants. It may be assumed that the treatment protocol with IIP+IL is the preferred method to allow optimized peri-implant re-innervation, but further functional measurements are still required.