Levels of smoking and dental implants failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Osseointegrated implant survival, success and prosthodontic outcomes in composite free flaps: A 10-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate implant survival, success and prosthodontic outcomes in a variety of composite free flaps.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patient records was used for data collection of implants placed into flaps. Free flap donor sites included fibula, iliac crest, scapula, medial femoral condyle and radial forearm. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate survival. Cox regression was used to assess variables affecting survival, and binary logistic regression was utilised to determine effect of variables on prosthodontic outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 150 implants placed into 45 fibula, 98 implants into 29 iliac crest, 62 implants into 22 scapula, 6 implants into 3 medial femoral condyle and 2 implants in radial forearm composite free flaps. There was no difference in survival or success between or within the various flaps. Active smoking, increasing age, male gender and radiotherapy were associated with implant failure. Of patients completing prosthodontic rehabilitation, 93% were successful. There was no difference in likelihood of failure between different flap types. Fixed implant-supported dentures were associated with poor oral hygiene compared with removable designs (OR2.9, 95%CI 1.1-7.8, p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is adequate survival and success of implants in common flaps. Caution is required when planning implants in patients exposed to radiotherapy and smokers. Ability to maintain adequate oral hygiene is an important prosthetic design consideration.

Immediate Post-Extraction Short Implant Placement with Immediate Loading and without Extraction of an Impacted Maxillary Canine: Two Case Reports

For the treatment of impacted maxillary canines, traction associated with a complete orthodontic treatment is the first choice in young patients. However, in adults, this treatment has a worse prognosis. The surgical extraction of the impacted tooth can result in a series of complications and a compromised alveolar bone integrity, which may lead to the requirement of a bone regeneration/grafting procedure to replace the canine with a dental implant. These case reports aimed to describe an alternative treatment procedure to the surgical extraction of impacted maxillary canines in adults. Following clinical and computerized tomography-scan (CT-Scan) examination, the possibility of maintaining the impacted canine in its position and replacing the temporary canine present in its place with a dental implant was planned. A short dental implant with an immediate provisional crown was placed, without contacting the impacted canine. At 3 months follow-up, a definitive metal-ceramic restoration was placed. Follow-up visits were performed periodically. The implant site showed a physiological soft tissue color and firmness, no marginal bone loss, no infection or inflammation, and an adequate aesthetic result in all follow-up visits. These results suggest that the treatment carried out is a valid option to rehabilitate with an osseointegrated short implant area where a canine is included, as long as there is a sufficient amount of the remaining bone.

The correlation between history of periodontitis according to staging and grading and the prevalence/severity of peri-implantitis in patients enrolled in maintenance therapy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine if a previous history of periodontitis according to the preset definitions of the 2017 World Workshop is correlated with increased implant failure, and occurrence and severity of peri-implantitis (PI).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with a history of periodontitis who received nonsurgical and, if indicated, surgical corrective therapy prior to implant placement was performed. Periodontitis stage and grade were determined for each included patient based on data from the time of initiation of active periodontal therapy. Cox Proportional Hazard Frailty models were built to analyze the correlation between stage and grade of periodontitis at baseline with implant failure, as well as occurrence and severity of PI.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients with a history of periodontitis receiving 221 implants were followed for a mean duration of 10.6 ± 4.5 years after implant placement. Six implants (2.7%) failed and a higher rate of implant failure due to PI was found for grade C patients (P < 0.05), whereas only an increased trend was seen for stages III and IV compared with I and II. Grading significantly influenced the risk of marginal bone loss (MBL) >25% of the implant length (P = 0.022) in PI-affected implants. However, a direct correlation between higher-level stage and grade and PI prevalence was not recorded.

CONCLUSION

No statistically significant association between periodontitis stage or grade and the prevalence of PI was found. However, when PI was diagnosed, there was a relationship between periodontitis grade and severity of PI or the occurrence of implant failure.

Outcomes of osseointegrated implants in patients with benign and malignant pathologies of the head and neck: a 10-year single-centre study

The surgical management of head and neck pathologies involving the maxilla and mandible results in significant functional and aesthetic deficits, and ultimately reduced quality of life. Composite free flaps used for reconstruction address many of these deficits and create a foundation for the use of osseointegrated implants to support prosthetic replacement of the dentition. There are few comparative studies examining outcomes of implants in native and reconstructed bone in head and neck cancer patients. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare survival rates and the effects of risk factors between implants placed in native and reconstructed bone. The Kaplan-Meier method estimated cumulative 1- and 5-year implant survival rates of 99.5% and 95% for native bone and 96% and 88% for reconstructed bone. Multivariate Cox regression found an increased risk of implant failure in reconstructed bone (hazard ratio (HR) 9.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.4-29.7, P<0.001). Subgroup analysis of the cohorts found an increased risk of failure in the reconstructed group associated with radiotherapy (HR 6.4, 95% CI 1.8-22.3, P=0.004), current smoking (HR 23.2, 95% CI 2.7-198.6, P=0.004), and previous smoking (HR 9.0, 95% CI 1.1-71.9, P=0.038). There was no effect in the native bone group. Implants placed into reconstructed bone had higher rates of failure, and smoking status and radiotherapy increased the risk of implant failure.

The Effects of Smoking Cigarettes on Immediate Dental Implant Stability—A Prospective Case Series Study

Background: Smoking tobacco significantly affects the biology of periodontal tissues and contributes to the increased risk of peri-implant diseases. The aim of the study was to investigate whether smoking cigarettes affects the primary and secondary stability of maxillary dental implants, inserted into fresh sockets immediately after extraction. Methods: The study was conducted on 164 patients between the ages of 27–71 years old. 67 individuals smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily and 97 were non-smokers. 190 immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla. Immediate implantations were performed with simultaneous augmentation of the socket with xenogenic bone grafting material. In the posterior region, implants were inserted into the palatal alveolus. The stability of the implants was measured using Insertion Torque Value (ITV) and two types of devices: Periotest (PT) and Osstell (ISQ). Marginal bone loss was evaluated on cone beam computed tomography scans. Results: In an aesthetic area, the PT values at 6 months post-implantation were higher for smokers than non-smokers (p < 0.05), respectively. The ISQ values were significantly lower in smokers compared to non-smokers at 6 months post-implantation (p = 0.0226), respectively. In the posterior region PT values were higher in smokers both on the day of implantation (p = 0.0179), 6 months after surgery (p = 0.0003) as well as 24 months after surgery (p < 0.0001), as compared to non-smokers, respectively. Smokers revealed lower ISQ values than non-smokers (p = 0.0047) on the day of implantation, as well as 6 months after implantation (p = 0.0002), respectively. There were no significant differences in marginal bone loss after 18 months of loading between smokers and non-smokers in the aesthetic, as well as posterior regions (p > 0.05). ITV measurements were lower in smokers than non-smokers in the aesthetic (16.3 vs. 17.5 Ncm) and posterior area (16.8 vs. 17.9 Ncm). Conclusions: This study indicate that smoking cigarettes has a negative effect on the stability of immediate implants in the maxilla. Primary stability of immediate implants may be lower in the posterior area of the maxilla in smokers when compared to non-smokers, which may eliminate smokers from immediate implants in this region. Secondary stability of immediate implants may be lower in both the aesthetic and posterior areas in smokers compared to non-smokers, which may encourage the postponement of final crowns delivery at 6 months post op and the extension of the occlusaly temporary crowns use in some smoker cases.

What Factors Are Associated With Implant Failure?

PURPOSE

Recognition of patient-specific risk factors should reduce implant failure. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors associated with implant failure and to determine if these factors differ over time after implant placement.

METHODS

The investigators implemented a retrospective case-controlled study and enrolled a sample composed of patients who had 1 or more implants removed from December 1, 2007 to February 29, 2020. Risk factors were grouped into demographic, medical history, and treatment-related variables. The primary outcome variable was whether the patient's implant failed, with control patients including those without implant failure. The duration was recorded for follow-up from the time of implant placement to the last visit or implant removal. Backward variable selection was used to predict whether an implant failed within 1 year, 1 to 4 years, or after 4 years in 3 multivariable logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Of 224 patients in this cohort, 82 experienced an implant failure. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.3 years, and 53.1% were females. Patients with osteoporosis had an increased risk of failure in each period. Alcohol use, smoking, depression, and penicillin allergy were all associated with an increased probability of failure within 1 or more of the periods considered.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has identified multiple discrete risk factors for implant failure and has demonstrated that these factors are associated with implant failure at different periods after placement.