How old is old for implant therapy in terms of early implant losses?

Smoking in relation to early dental implant failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between smoking and early dental implant failure by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for reports of relevant studies addressing the relationship between smoking and early dental implant failure published between database inception and June 2024.

STUDY SELECTION

Thirty-two observational clinical studies published between 1994 and 2024 were included, with a total of 59,246 implants at implant level and 14,115 patients at individual level. At implant level, a meta-analysis of 21 included cohort studies showed that smoking was associated with increased risk of early dental implant failure compared with non-smoking (odds ratio [OR], 2.59; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 2.08-3.23). Three included studies reported that smoking was associated with higher maxillary early dental implant failure risk (OR, 5.90; 95 %CI, 2.38-14.66) than that of mandible (OR, 3.76; 95 %CI, 1.19-11.87). At individual level, meta-analysis of thirty cohort studies indicated that risk of early implant failure in smokers was 100 % higher than in non-smokers (OR, 2.00; 95 %CI, 1.43-2.80). Three case-control studies found that risk of early implant failure of smokers was 59 % higher than that of non-smokers (OR, 1.59; 95 %CI, 1.28-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking was significantly associated with early dental implant failure, particularly at the maxillary location, at both implant and individual level. These findings suggest smoking cessation is a crucial factor in reducing risk of early dental implant failure.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

There is uncertainty about the extent to which smoking influences early dental implant failure, our meta-analysis of findings emphasize smoking was significantly associated with early dental implant failure, particularly at the maxillary location.

Hypertension and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of hypertension on the dental implant failure rate.

METHODS

An electronic search was undertaken in four databases, plus a manual search of journals. The I2 statistic was used to check heterogeneity and the inverse-variance method was used for the meta-analysis. The estimate of relative effect for dichotomous outcome was expressed as an odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

The review included 24 publications. There were 4874 implants (257 failures) placed in hypertensive patients and 16,192 implants (809 failures) placed in normotensive patients. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in hypertensive patients did not have a higher risk of failure than implants placed in normotensive patients (OR 1.100, p = 0.671). The log OR of implant failure between hypertensive and normotensive patients did not significantly change with the follow-up time (p = 0.824).

CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that implants in hypertensive patients do not present higher odds of failure in comparison to normotensive patients. However, further research on this topic, with the use of more rigorous criteria to diagnose patients as being hypertensive, as well as clearer information about the pharmacological management of the condition in the patients, is recommended.

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.

Effects of Aging on Osteosynthesis at Bone-Implant Interfaces

Joint replacement is a common surgery and is predominantly utilized for treatment of osteoarthritis in the aging population. The longevity of many of these implants depends on bony ingrowth. Here, we provide an overview of current techniques in osteogenesis (inducing bone growth onto an implant), which is affected by aging and inflammation. In this review we cover the biologic underpinnings of these processes as well as the clinical applications. Overall, aging has a significant effect at the cellular and macroscopic level that impacts osteosynthesis at bone-metal interfaces after joint arthroplasty; potential solutions include targeting prolonged inflammation, preventing microbial adhesion, and enhancing osteoinductive and osteoconductive properties.

Mesenchymal stem cells and dental implant osseointegration during aging: from mechanisms to therapy

Dental implants are widely used to replace missing teeth, providing patients with unparalleled levels of effectiveness, convenience, and affordability. The biological basis for the clinical success of dental implants is osseointegration. Bone aging is a high-risk factor for the reduced osseointegration and survival rates of dental implants. In aged individuals, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in the bone marrow show imbalanced differentiation with a reduction in osteogenesis and an increase in adipogenesis. This leads to impaired osseointegration and implant failure. This review focuses on the molecular mechanisms underlying the dysfunctional differentiation of aged MSCs, which primarily include autophagy, transcription factors, extracellular vesicle secretion, signaling pathways, epigenetic modifications, microRNAs, and oxidative stress. Furthermore, this review addresses the pathological changes in MSCs that affect osseointegration and discusses potential therapeutic interventions to enhance osseointegration by manipulating the mechanisms underlying MSC aging.

Bisphosphonates and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The purpose of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of bisphosphonates (BPs) on the dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL). An electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, besides a meta-regression in order to verify how the log odds ratio (OR) was associated with follow-up time. The five- and ten-year estimated implant survivals were calculated. The review included 33 publications. Altogether, there were 1727 and 21,986 implants placed in patients taking and not taking BPs, respectively. A pairwise meta-analysis (26 studies) showed that implants in BP patients had a higher failure risk in comparison to non-BP patients (OR 1.653, p = 0.047). There was an estimated decrease of 0.004 in log OR for every additional month of follow-up, although it was not significant (p = 0.259). The global estimated implant survival in patients taking BPs after 5 and 10 years was 94.2% (95% CI, 94.0-94.4) and 90.1% (95% CI, 89.8-90.3), respectively. It was not possible to make any reliable analysis concerning MBL, as only two studies reported MBL results separated by groups. There is a 65.3% higher risk of implant failure in patients taking BPs in comparison to patients not taking this class of drugs.

Evaluation of Implant Stability According to Implant Placement Site and Duration in Elderly Patients: A Prospective Multi-Center Cohort Study

The aim of this prospective study is to investigate implant stability and the reliability of different measuring devices according to implant placement site and duration in patients aged over 65 years. The study evaluated 60 implants (diameter: 3.5/4.0/4.5/5.0 mm and length: 8.5/10.0/11.5 mm) in 60 patients aged ≥ 65 years. The implant placement sites were divided into six evenly distributed sections (n = 10), i.e., maxillary right-posterior, A; maxillary anterior, B; maxillary left-posterior, C; mandibular right-posterior, D; mandibular anterior, E; mandibular left-posterior, F. Participants visited the hospital six times: implant surgery, 1V; stitch removal, 2V; 1-month follow-up, 3V; 2-month follow-up, 4V; before final restoration delivery, 5V; and after final restoration delivery, 6V. The implant stability was evaluated with the Osstell Mentor (ISQ), Periotest M (PTV), and Anycheck (IST). The mean values of ISQ, PTV, and IST were analyzed (α = 0.05). ISQ, PTV, and IST results of 4V and 5V were significantly higher than those of 1V (p < 0.05). The lowest ISQ results occurred in the E location at 4V and 5V (p < 0.05). In all mandibular locations, IST results of 6V were significantly higher than those of 1V, 2V, 3V, and 4V (p < 0.05). ISQ results were negatively correlated with PTV and positively correlated with IST, and PTV was negatively correlated with IST. By considering various factors affecting the stability of the implant, it is necessary to determine the appropriate implant load application time. This could help increase the implant success rate in elderly patients. And as a diagnostic device for implant stability and the evaluation of osseointegration in elderly patients, Anycheck was also able to prove its relative reliability compared to Osstell ISQ Mentor and Periotest M.

Prognosis of Implants with Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses in the Elderly Population: A Retrospective Study with a 5- to 10-Year Follow-Up

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the survival rate of implants from 5 to 10 years after the placement of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) and the management of implant loss in the elderly population. Elderly patients (≥65 years old) who had been treated with ISFDPs and followed up with for at least 5 years between October 2009 and March 2020 were enrolled. Patient profiles and implant-related data were extracted. The survival rate of implants up to 5 years as well as the 10-year cumulative survival rate were evaluated. The management of implant loss and prosthetic interventions were also investigated. In total, 195 patients (mean age: 70.1 ± 4.5 years old) and 687 implants (287 ISFDPs) were assessed. The 5-year survival rate was 99.0% and the 10-year cumulative survival rate was 98.1%. Seven of the eleven implants lost were lost due to peri-implantitis. Only three implants in two patients were placed after the loss of the implants; most were restored using non-invasive procedures. Two patients underwent a conversion from ISFDPs to removable prostheses. This study showed that high survival rates were observed in an elderly population with ISFDPs and that non-invasive procedures were often applied after the loss of an implant.

Patient-reported outcome measures following surgeries in implant dentistry and associated factors: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of dental implant surgeries and analyse the associated indicators.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study design was used.

SETTING

Department of Oral Implantology, Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University (May 2020-April 2021).

PARTICIPANTS

Participants with missing teeth in need of implant-supported rehabilitation.

INTERVENTIONS

Dental implant placement and/or bone augmentation procedures.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was discomfort on postoperative day 1, measured using a numerical rating scale (NRS). Secondary outcomes included pain and anxiety during surgery; discomfort on postoperative days 3, 7 and 14; and post-surgical complications.

RESULTS

A total of 366 participants were included, of which 288 (78.7%) and 328 (89.7%) reported no to mild pain and anxiety (NRS 0-3) during surgery, respectively. The proportion of patients reporting discomfort decreased from postoperative day 1 (57.7%) to day 3 (36.1%) and day 7 (17.5%). The most frequent postoperative adverse events were pain and swelling. Patient-related factors (age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, history of periodontitis, and pain and anxiety during surgery) and surgery-related factors (type and extent of surgical procedure) were analysed. The factors associated with the severity of discomfort after surgery included alcohol consumption, pain perception during surgery, bone augmentation procedures and age (p<0.05). Similarly, the factors associated with the duration of discomfort included alcohol consumption, pain perception during surgery and age (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs related to dental implant surgeries can be predicted using certain risk indicators. Alcohol consumption, pain during surgery and age were associated with discomfort following dental implant surgery.

What is the influence of implant surface characteristics and/or implant material on the incidence and progression of peri-implantitis? A systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To answer the focused question, 'In animals or patients with dental implants, does implant surface characteristics and/or implant material have an effect on incidence and progression of peri-implantitis?'

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pre-clinical in vivo experiments on experimental peri-implantitis and clinical trials with any aim and design, and ≥5 years follow-up, where the effect of ≥2 different type of implant material and/or surface characteristics on peri-implantitis incidence or severity, and/or progression, implant survival or losses due to peri-implantitis, and/or marginal bone levels/loss was assessed.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses based on data of pre-clinical experiments, using the ligature induced peri-implantitis model in the dog, indicated that after the spontaneous progression phase implants with a modified surface showed significantly greater radiographic bone loss (effect size 0.44 mm; 95%CI 0.10-0.79; p = .012; 8 publications) and area of infiltrated connective tissue (effect size 0.75 mm² ; 95%CI 0.15-1.34; p = .014; 5 publications) compared to non-modified surfaces. However, in 9 out of the 18 included experiments, reported in 25 publications, no significant differences were shown among the different implant surface types assessed. Clinical and/or radiographic data from 7605 patients with 26,188 implants, reported in 31 publications (20 RCTs, 3 CTs, 4 prospective cohort, and 4 retrospective studies; 12 with follow-up ≥10 years), overall did not show significant differences in the incidence of peri-implantitis, when this was reported or could be inferred, among the various implant surfaces. In general, high survival rates (90-100%) up to 30 years and no clinically relevant differences in marginal bone loss/levels, merely compatible with crestal remodelling, were presented for the various implant types.

CONCLUSION

Pre-clinical in vivo experiments indicate that surface characteristics of modified implants may have a significant negative impact on peri-implantitis progression, while clinical studies do not support the notion that there is a difference in peri-implantitis incidence among the various types of implant surfaces. No assumptions can be made regarding the possible impact of implant material on incidence and/or peri-implantitis progression due to limited information.

Evaluation of the Association of Early Implant Failure With Local, Environmental, and Systemic Factors: A Retrospective Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the association of early implant failure (EIF) with demographic, local, environmental, and systemic factors.

METHODS

Clinical charts of 594 individuals with 2,537 dental implants were assessed. EIF was characterized by implant loss before and up to the abutment connection. Logistic regression analysis was used to verify the association between EIF and local, environmental, and systemic factors at the individual and implant levels. The chosen level of significance was 5%.

RESULTS

EIF occurred in 144 implants (5.68%) and in 97 individuals (16.3%). At the individual level, smoking habits (odds ratio [OR] = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 6.47; P = .05), absence of postoperative antibiotic therapy (OR = 2.73; CI = 1.22 to 6.13; P = .02), and bone augmentation (OR = 1.83; CI = 1.17 to 2.85; P = .01) were significantly associated with EIF. At the implant level, smoking habits (OR = 2.90; CI = 1.60 to 5.26, P < .001), absence of postoperative antibiotic therapy (OR = 2.77; CI = 1.36 to 5.63, P = .005), postoperative complications (OR = 28.35; CI = 6.79 to 118.45, P < .001), implant length ≤8.5 mm (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.07 to 2.99; P = .03), and diameter <3.75 mm (OR = 1.65; CI = 1.08 to 2.52, P = .02) were associated with EIF. Age, sex, alcohol abuse, diabetes, hypertension, and long-term medication use were not associated with EIF at both individual and implant levels (P ≥ .12).

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking habits, absence of antibiotic therapy, bone augmentation, postoperative complications, implant diameter <3.75 mm, and implant length ≤8.5 mm were associated with EIF. Clinicians should be aware of these associations that should be controlled for when feasible. Future cohort studies are required to confirm the risk factors.

How old is old for implant therapy in terms of implant survival and marginal bone levels after 5-11 years?

Aim

To evaluate implant survival and marginal bone levels (MBL_evel) at least 5 years after implant installation in patients ≥65 years old.

Methods

Patient records were screened retrospectively for the following inclusion criteria: (1) ≥65 years of age at the time of implant installation, and (2) ≥5‐year radiographic follow‐up or registered implant loss. Association between patient‐ and implant‐related data with radiographically assessed data [i.e. implant survival, mean MBL_evel (i.e. average of mesial and distal level) and maximum marginal bone loss (i.e. either mesial or distal loss; maximum MBL_oss)] were statistically evaluated by mixed effects multi‐level regression models.

Results

Two‐hundred‐eighteen implants in 74 patients were included with a mean follow‐up of 6.2 years (range: 5 to 10.7 years); four early and six late implant losses have been registered (implant survival rate: 95.4%). Mean MBL_evel and maximum MBL_oss was 1.24 ± 0.9 mm and 1.48 ± 1.0 mm, respectively. Maximum MBL_oss < 2 mm, 2 to 5 mm and ≥5 mm was found in 70.7, 28.8 and 0.5% of the implants, respectively. For both, mean MBL_evel and maximum MBL_oss, age presented a slightly protective effect (mean MBL_evel: Coef. −0.041, p = .016; maximum MBL_oss: Coef. −0.045, p = .014).

Conclusion

The high implant survival rate (95.4%), low mean MBL_evel (1.24 mm) and low frequency of maximum MBL_oss ≥ 5 mm (0.5%) observed herein after 5 to 11 years follow‐up suggest that older age should not be considered as a limiting factor for implant treatment.

How old is old for implant therapy in terms of early implant losses?

OBJECTIVES

To assess, retrospectively, whether older age has an impact on implant osseointegration when compared with younger age.

METHODS

All patients ≥65 years old at implant installation, in an university setting over a time-period of 11.5 years, with complete anamnestic data and follow-up until prosthetic restoration were included, and any early implant loss (EIL; i.e. lack of osseointegration prior to or at the time-point of prosthetic restoration) was recorded. Further, one implant, from each of the elderly patients, was attempted matched to one implant in a younger patient (35 to <55 years old at implant installation) from the same clinic based on (a) gender, (b) implant region, (c) smoking status and (d) bone grafting prior to/simultaneously with implant installation. The potential impact of various local and systemic factors on EIL in the entire elderly population, and in the matched elderly and younger patient group was statistically assessed.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-four patients ≥65 years old (range 65.1-91.3; 56.8% female) receiving 1,517 implants were identified; 10 patients had one EIL each (implant/patient level: 0.66/2.25%). Splitting this patient cohort additionally into four age groups [65-69.9 (n = 213), 70-74.9 (n = 111), 75-79.9 (n = 80) and ≥80 (n = 40)], EIL was on the implant level 0.41, 0.83, 0.34 and 2.26%, respectively, (p = .102) and on the patient level 1.41, 2.70, 1.25 and 7.50%, respectively, (p = .104); multilevel analysis showed weak evidence of association of increasing age with higher EIL rate (p = .090). Matching was possible in 347 cases, and 5 (1.44%) and 9 (2.59%) EIL in the elderly and younger patients, respectively, were observed (p = .280). EIL could not be associated with any systemic condition or medication intake.

CONCLUSIONS

Elderly patients ≥65 years old presented a similarly low EIL rate as younger patients 35 to <55 years old, while patients ≥80 years old may have a slight tendency for a higher EIL rate. Hence, ageing does not seem to compromise osseointegration, and if at all, then only slightly and at a later stage of life.