Implant Treatment in Patients With Autoimmune Diseases: A Systematic Review and Analysis of Studies

Dental implants provide a reliable solution for edentulous patients with autoimmune diseases improving quality of life. The present systematic review aimed to determine whether autoimmune diseases with oral manifestations could affect the survival rate of dental implants. A systematic search was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA), using Google Scholar and PubMed electronic databases, between the year 2000 and February 2024. The eligibility criteria included human studies, in English language reporting on patients with autoimmune diseases treated with dental implants. Nineteen studies were included: nine on oral lichen planus (OLP), four on Sjögren's syndrome (SS), five on epidermolysis bullosa (EB), and one on lupus erythematosus (LE). A total of 389 implants in 142 patients with OLP showed a survival rate (SR) of 94.6%, while 316 implants in 111 patients with SS had a survival rate of 95.8%. In 31 patients with EB, 181 implants were placed with a survival rate of 99.5%, and 12 implants were placed in five patients with LE with a survival rate of 100% after one year of function. Despite the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of most of the studies, the results showed that dental implant survival rates were comparable to those reported in the general population. This review suggested that dental implants are a viable treatment option for patients with autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, proper daily oral hygiene and long-term follow-up are decisive factors for the long-term maintenance of dental implants.

Dental implant considerations in patients with systemic diseases: An updated comprehensive review

BACKGROUND

Various medical conditions and the drugs used to treat them have been shown to impede or complicate dental implant surgery. It is crucial to carefully monitor the medical status and potential post-operative complications of patients with systemic diseases, particularly elderly patients, to minimize the risk of health complications that may arise.

AIM

The purpose of this study was to review the existing evidence on the viability of dental implants in patients with systemic diseases and to provide practical recommendations to achieve the best possible results in the corresponding patient population.

METHODS

The information for our study was compiled using data from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases and searched separately for each systemic disease included in our work until October 2023. An additional manual search was also performed to increase the search sensitivity. Only English-language publications were included and assessed according to titles, abstracts and full texts.

RESULTS

In total, 6784 studies were found. After checking for duplicates and full-text availability, screening for the inclusion criteria and manually searching reference lists, 570 articles remained to be considered in this study.

CONCLUSION

In treating patients with systemic conditions, the cost-benefit analysis should consider the patient's quality of life and expected lifespan. The success of dental implants depends heavily on ensuring appropriate maintenance therapy, ideal oral hygiene standards, no smoking and avoiding other risk factors. Indications and contraindications for dental implants in cases of systemic diseases are yet to be more understood; broader and hardcore research needs to be done for a guideline foundation.

Survival and Success of Dental Implants in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: a Systematic Review

Objectives

The purpose of this systematic review is to disclose the impact of autoimmune diseases and their medical treatment on dental implant survival and success.

Material and Methods

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Library and Embase up to December 6th, 2021. Any clinical study on patients with an autoimmune disease in whom implant therapy was performed was eligible. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For each autoimmune disease group, data synthesis was divided into three groups: 1) overall results of the autoimmune disease, 2) overall results of corresponding control groups and 3) overall results of the autoimmune disease with a concomitant autoimmune disease (a subgroup of group 1). Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Of 4,865 identified articles, 67 could be included and mainly comprising case reports and retrospective studies with an overall low quality. Implant survival rate was 50 to 100% on patient and implant level after a weighted mean follow-up of 17.7 to 68.1 months. Implant success was sporadically reported. Data on immunosuppressive medication were too heterogeneously reported to allow detailed analysis.

Conclusions

Overall, a high implant survival rate was reported in patients with autoimmune diseases. However, the identified studies were characterized by a low quality. No conclusions could be made regarding implant success and the effect of immunosuppressants due to heterogeneous reporting.

Dental Implant Treatment in Patients Suffering from Oral Lichen Planus: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to describe the complications and survival rates of dental implants placed in patients suffering from oral lichen planus (OLP) and to present recommendations for implant treatment in this group of patients through a narrative review of the published studies.

METHODS

A search of the literature was conducted using four databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus with a stop date of May 2022.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies were evaluated. The results showed that dental implant survival rates in patients with OLP were similar to those reported in the general population. Moreover, the existing literature seemed to imply that OLP is not a suspected risk factor for peri-implant diseases. However, patients suffering from erosive forms of OLP or desquamative gingivitis and poor oral hygiene were more susceptible to developing peri-implant diseases; in addition, oral squamous cell carcinoma was observed in a few cases of OLP.

CONCLUSION

With the limitations of this narrative review, dental implants may be regarded as a safe and feasible therapeutic approach to the treatment of patients with well-controlled OLP. These patients should be monitored carefully during follow-up care. Well-designed prospective trials are required to validate the present findings.

A Case Report of Dental Implants and Site Augmentation in a Patient with Erosive Lichen Planus

Lichen planus (LP) is an autoimmune inflammatory disease that affects oral mucosal tissue, leading to complications in patients treated with dental implant therapy. This case report discusses the clinical management of a patient diagnosed with an erosive type of LP. After disease management, the patient was treated with dental implants in the upper and lower jaws with augmentation procedures around the implants. All implants were loaded after a three-month period of healing. Slight bone loss was observed in the upper premolar area following an exaggerated soft tissue response to the augmentation procedure. Within one year of implant placement, no additional complications were encountered.

French guidelines for the management of oral lichen planus (excluding pharmacological therapy)

INTRODUCTION

Oral lichen is a chronic inflammatory disease for which diagnostic management and follow-up are heterogeneous given the absence of specific guidelines in France. Our objective was to develop French multidisciplinary guidelines for the management of oral lichen.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Working groups from the Groupe d'Etude de la Muqueuse Buccale (GEMUB) formulated a list of research questions and the corresponding recommendations according to the "formal consensus" method for developing practice guidelines. These recommendations were submitted to a group of experts and the degree of agreement for each recommendation was assessed by a scoring group.

RESULTS

Twenty-two research questions, divided into 3 themes (nosological classification and initial assessment, induced oral lichenoid lesions, and follow-up) resulted in 22 recommendations. Initial biopsy for histology is recommended in the absence of reticulated lesions. Biopsy for direct immunofluorescence is recommended for ulcerated, erosive, bullous types and for diffuse erythematous gingivitis. Management should include a periodontal and dental check-up, and investigation for extra-oral lesions. Hepatitis C testing is recommended only if risk factors are present. Definitions, triggering factors and the management of "induced oral lichenoid lesions" were clarified. Oral lichen must be monitored by a practitioner familiar with the disease at least once a year, using objective tools.

CONCLUSION

This formalised consensus of multidisciplinary experts provides clinical practice guidelines on the management and monitoring of oral lichen.

Dental implants in patients suffering from autoimmune diseases: A systematic critical review

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to evaluate complications and survival rates of dental implants placed in patients suffering from autoimmune diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review guidelines (PRISMA), using Google scholar and PubMed electronic databases with a stop date of September 2021. The eligibility criteria included all full text human studies in the English language literature reporting on patients with autoimmune diseases treated with dental implants.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies reporting on nine distinct autoimmune diseases were analyzed: 17 on Sjögren's syndrome (SS), 11 on oral lichen planus (OLP), 8 on Type 1 diabetes, 6 on rheumatoid arthritis (RA), 4 on systemic scleroderma (SSc), 3 on Crohn's disease (CD), 3 on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), 2 on mucous membrane pemphigoid (MMB) and 1 on pemphigus vulgaris (PV). Despite the heterogeneity and methodological limitations of most of the studies, results showed that dental implant survival rates were comparable to those reported in the general population. However, patients with secondary SS or erosive OLP were more susceptible to developing peri-mucositis and increased marginal bone loss.

CONCLUSION

This review suggested that dental implants may be considered as a safe and viable therapeutic option in the management of edentulous patients suffering from autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, scrupulous maintenance of oral hygiene and long-term follow-up emerge as being the common determinants for uneventful dental implant treatment.

Implant-prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review

AIMS

This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant-prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: "which implant-prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?". The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the "Newcastle-Ottawa scale" and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant-prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow-up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses.

CONCLUSION

The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).

Peri-implantitis management in a patient with erosive oral lichen planus. A case report

Oral lichen planus did not seem to influence the peri-implant healing. Oral lesions with malignant potential can mimic peri-implantitis, and a biopsy should be performed in cases of progression or nonregression of the lesion after initial treatment.

Oral Lichen Planus and Dental Implants: Protocol and Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to answer the following PICO question: “Can patients diagnosed with oral lichen planus (OLP) be rehabilitated with dental implants as successfully as patients without OLP?”. A systematic review of the literature was done following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements to gather available and current evidence of oral lichen planus and its relationship with dental implants. The synthesis of results was performed using a Binary Random-Effects Model meta-analysis. Summary measures were odds ratios (ORs), frequencies, and percentages comparing the survival rate of dental implants placed in patients with OLP vs. those in patients without OLP. The electronic search yielded 25 articles, after removing the duplicated ones, 24 articles were selected. Out of the 24 articles, only 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. According to the results of the meta-analysis, with a total sample of 48 patients with OLP and 49 patients without OLP, an odds ratio of 2.48 (95% CI 0.34–18.1) was established, with an I² value of 0%. According to the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria, level A can be established to conclude that patients with OLP can be rehabilitated with dental implants.

Applying dental implant therapy in patients with oral lichen planus: a review of literature

Lichen planus (LP) is a violent, paranormal inflammatory disease that can affect the skin or any lining of the mucous membrane. LPs are a branch of immune-mediated inflammatory disease (IMID) that collaborates with the function and structure of the immune system that are precipitated through various etiological infectious agents. Oral lichen planus (OLP) is one of the most common kinds of IMID. These traumas might limit the normal life of patients and, in some cases, can be treated spontaneously. In patients who are affected by OLP, the dental clinicians must be capable of the proper diagnosis of the disorder. Dental implants are progressively applied for the treatment of partial or complete edentulism. Implant rehabilitation in OLP patients is one of the main challenges for patients and dental clinicians. There is not enough knowledge about this condition, and also medical documents are limited. In this study, by conducting a comprehensive review of literature, we tried to collect related data around the safety and success rate of implant rehabilitation in patients who suffer from OLP disorder. There proved to be no relation between implant survival rate and OLP diseases, but it is proven that some factors such as bone quality and fracture resistance, parafunctional habits, and resection of the marginal mandible could powerfully affect it. For evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of applying implants in patients with OLP disorders, implementation of controlled studies is required.

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from 1 month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I² test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model.

Results

Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs (PI: RR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.77–2.90, P = 0.24; PIM:RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.53–1.46, P = 0.61; PIDs: RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75–1.55, P = 0.68) or BOP (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70–1.15, P = 0.40) between OLP and non-OLP groups.

Conclusions

Available articles regarding the effects of OLP on PIDs remains very limited. Existing evidence does not support OLP as a suspected risk factor for PIDs. Large-scale prospective trials are required to validate the findings.

Dental Implants in Patients with Oral Lichen Planus: A Systematic Review

Background and Objectives: To integrate the available published data on patients with oral lichen planus (OLP) rehabilitated with dental implants, as well as to review the recommendations for OLP patients receiving implants. Materials and Methods: An electronic search was undertaken in February 2019 using five databases. Publications reporting cases of patients with OLP and rehabilitated with implant-supported oral prosthesis were included. Results: Twenty-two publications were included (230 patients, 615 implants). The overall implant failure rate was 13.9% (85/610). In patients with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) the failure rate was 90.6% (29/32), but none of these implants lost osseointegration; instead, the implants were removed together with the tumor. One study presented a very high implant failure rate, 76.4% (42/55), in patients with “active lichen planus”, with all implants failing between 7–16 weeks after implant placement, and its conflicting and incongruent results are discussed in detail. There was a statistically significant difference between the failure rates in implants installed in different jaws (maxilla/mandible) and when implants of different surfaces were used (turned/moderately rough), but not between patients with reticular or erosive OLP types, or between male and female patients. If OSCC patients and the cases of the latter study are not considered, then the failure rate becomes very low (2.7%, 14/523). The time between implant placement and failure was 25.4 ± 32.6 months (range 1–112). The mean ± SD follow-up was 58.9 ± 26.7 months (1–180). Conclusions: When the results of the one study with a very high failure rate and of the cases that developed OSCC are not considered, the dental implant failure rate in OLP patients was 2.7% after a follow-up of approximately five years. Recommendations are given when treating OLP patients with dental implants.

Peri-implant mucositis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included.

FINDINGS

Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Peri-implant mucositis

OBJECTIVES

This narrative review was prepared for the 2017 World Workshop of the American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology to address key questions related to the clinical condition of peri-implant mucositis, including: 1) the definition of peri-implant mucositis, 2) conversion of peri-implant health to the biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis lesion, 3) reversibility of peri-implant mucositis, 4) the long-standing peri-implant mucositis lesion, 5) similarities and differences between peri-implant mucositis at implants and gingivitis at teeth, and 6) risk indicators/factors for peri-implant mucositis.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library up to and including July 31, 2016, was carried out using the search strategy (peri-implant[All Fields] AND ("mucositis"[MeSH Terms] OR "mucositis"[All Fields])) OR (periimplant[All Fields] AND mucosits[All Fields]). Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional studies and review papers that focused on risk factors/indicators for peri-implant mucositis as well as experimental peri-implant mucositis studies in animals and humans were included.

FINDINGS

Peri-implant mucositis is an inflammatory lesion of the soft tissues surrounding an endosseous implant in the absence of loss of supporting bone or continuing marginal bone loss. A cause-and-effect relationship between experimental accumulation of bacterial biofilms around titanium dental implants and the development of an inflammatory response has been demonstrated. The experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion is characterized by an inflammatory cell infiltrate present within the connective tissue lateral to the barrier epithelium. In long-standing peri-implant mucositis, the inflammatory cell infiltrate is larger in size than in the early (3-week) experimental peri-implant mucositis lesion. Biofilm-induced peri-implant mucositis is reversible at the host biomarker level once biofilm control is reinstituted. Reversal of the clinical signs of inflammation may take longer than 3 weeks. Factors identified as risk indicators for peri-implant mucositis include biofilm accumulation, smoking, and radiation. Further evidence is required for potential risk factors, including diabetes, lack of keratinized mucosa, and presence of excess luting cement.

CONCLUSIONS

Peri-implant mucositis is caused by biofilm accumulation which disrupts the host-microbe homeostasis at the implant-mucosa interface, resulting in an inflammatory lesion. Peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition at the host biomarker level. Therefore, the clinical implication is that optimal biofilm removal is a prerequisite for the prevention and management of peri-implant mucositis. An understanding of peri-implant mucositis is important because it is considered a precursor for peri-implantitis.

Implants in patients with oral manifestations of autoimmune or muco-cutaneous diseases - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

To give an overview on implant survival rates in patients with oral manifestations of systemic autoimmune (oral Lichen planus (oLp), Pemphigus (Pe)), muco-cutaneous (Epidermolysis bullosa (EB)), autoimmune multisystemic rheumatic diseases (Sjögren's syndrome (SjS), systemic Lupus erythematosus (sLE), or systemic Sclerosis (sSc)).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic literature review (PubMed/Medline, Embase) using MESH and search term combinations, published between 1980 and August 2018 in English language reporting on dental implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with oLp, Pe, EB, SjS, sLE, sSc, study design, age, gender, follow-up period (≥ 12 months), implant survival rate. Implant-related weighed mean values of implant survival rate (wmSR) were calculated.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period (mfp) of 44.6 months, a wmSR of 98.3 % was calculated from data published for patients with oLp (100 patients with 302 implants). Data of 27 patients (152 implants) with EB revealed wmSR of 98.7 % following mfp of 32.6 months. For 71 patients (272 implants) with SjS, wmSR was 94.2 % following a mfp of 45.2 months, and for 6 patients (44 implants) with sSc, wmSR was 97.7 % after mfp of 37.5 months. One case report on one patient each with Pe (two implants) as well as sLE (6 implants) showed 100 % SR following at least 24 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines regarding implant treatment of patients with oLp, Pe, EB, SjS, sLE or sSc do not exist nor are contraindicating conditions defined. Implant survival rates of patients affected are comparable to those of healthy patients. For implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of patients with Pe and sLE no conclusions can be drawn due to lack of sufficient clinical data. Implant-prosthetic treatment guidelines regarding healthy patients should be strictly followed, but frequent recall is recommended in patients affected with oLp, SjS, EB, SSc, Pe or sLE.

Dental Implant Rehabilitation in Patients Suffering from Mucocutaneous Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective:

Dental implantations are widely used for oral rehabilitation of edentulous patients. Despite high success rate, there are some risk factors that have been associated with failures. Oral mucocutaneous diseases are one of these risk factors for implant insertion due to the immunosuppressive therapy.

There are limited studies that have dealt with the subject of dental implantology in oral mucosal disorders mainly with patients with oral lichenplanus, pemphigoid, pemphigus vulgaris, and systemic lupus erythematosus. In order to assess the result of implantations in such patients, we have reviewed the studies.

Materials and Methods:

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane databases for articles published from Jan 2000 to Dec 2017, using key search word “dental implants”, “oral lichen planus”, “pemphigoid”, “pemphigus vulgaris” and ”systemic lupus erythematosus”.

Results:

The random effects analysis result shows overall failure rates of 22% in patients with oral lichen planus. A systematic review revealed some failures that are not definitely related to these diseases.

Conclusion:

Due to the lack of adequate studies, a meta-analysis was only possible for oral lichen planus. Presently, there is no definite guideline regarding the placement of implant in patients suffering from mucocutaneous diseases; nevertheless, we should always consider that these patients are specific cases and need more attention in the first step of treatment and follow-ups. So there is a need to further clinical studies in order to evaluate more risk factors accurately and make a definitive conclusion.

Is dental implantation indicated in patients with oral mucosal diseases

Background/Aim: Dental implants are a reliable treatment choice for rehabilitation of healthy patients as well as subjects with several systemic conditions. Patients with oral mucosal diseases often exhibit oral mucosal fragility and dryness, erosions, blisters, ulcers or microstomia that complicate the use of removable dentures and emphasize the need for dental implants. The aim of the current study is to review the pertinent literature regarding the dental implantation prospects for patients with oral mucosal diseases. Material and Method: The English literature was searched through PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases with key words: dental implants, oral mucosal diseases, oral lichen planus (OLP), epidermolysis bullosa (EB), Sjögren’s syndrome (SS), cicatricial pemphigoid, bullous pemphigoid, pemphigus vulgaris, scleroderma/systemic sclerosis, lupus erythematosus, leukoplakia, oral potentially malignant disorders, oral premalignant lesions, oral cancer and oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Results: Literature review revealed dental implantation in patients with OLP (14 articles), EB (11 articles), pemphigus vulgaris (1 article), SS (14 articles), systemic sclerosis (11 articles), systemic lupus erythematosus (3 articles) and oral SCC development associated with leukoplakia (5 articles). No articles regarding dental implants in patients with pemphigoid or leukoplakia without SCC development were identified. Most articles were case-reports, while only a few retrospective, prospective or observational studies were identified. Conclusions: Dental implants represent an acceptable treatment option with a high success rate in patients with chronic mucocutaneous and autoimmune diseases with oral manifestations, such as OLP, SS, EB and systemic sclerosis. Patients with oral possibly malignant disorders should be closely monitored to rule out the development of periimplant malignancy. Further studies with long follow-up, clinical and radiographic dental data are required to predict with accuracy the outcome of dental implants in patients with oral mucosal diseases.

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

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the influence of systemic diseases or medications used in their treatment on the dental implant therapy success.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The 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.

RESULTS

Present 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent 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.