Clinical Management Protocol for Dental Implants Inserted in Patients with Active Lichen Planus

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.

Stabilized oral lichen planus does not compromise dental implants survival: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of implant failure in patients with oral lichen planus (OLP) and investigate the potential association between OLP and peri-implant diseases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus databases were searched for studies with no time restrictions. Meta-analysis was performed calculating pooled proportion of peri-implantitis (PI), peri-implant mucositis (PIM), and bleeding on probing (BOP) prevalence using fixed-effects model. Odds ratio and corresponding 95% CI were calculated to assess the potential risk of PI, PIM, and BOP in dental implant patients with OLP compared to healthy controls.

RESULTS

Implant failure rate was 4.38% at the patient level and 4.37% at the implant level. Six patients (3.92%) from five studies were diagnosed with oral cancer after receiving implant. The prevalence of PI, PIM, and BOP at the implant level were 14.00%, 20.00%, and 40.00%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of PI and PIM between OLP patients and healthy controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Stabilized OLP is not considered a significant risk factor for peri-implant diseases. It is advised against placing implants or prostheses during the acute phase of the disease. Histopathological investigation to differentiate OLP from oral lichenoid dysplasia is crucial.

Peri-Implant Mucosal Fenestration and Histologic Observation of Bone Xenograft Material 7-Years After Implant Installation: A Case Report

Bone augmentation is often required before the installation of dental implants. Here, we report a case for a patient who previously received bone augmentation at the upper right jaw using a xenogenic graft, followed by successful implant installation. Seven years later, the patient presented with mucosal fenestration with bone exposure at the area and gave a history of a recent diagnosis of cutaneous lichen planus. Several attempts were made to manage the situation, and finally, we resorted to connective tissue graft placement at the site. A piece of bone was sent for histologic evaluation, where the results indicated the presence of un-resorbed graft material surrounded by inflammatory cells, with no evidence of bone formation in the area. The case presents histologic evidence for the lack of new bone formation using xenograft over the evaluation period. The case also shows lichen planus, a possible cause for oral complication for patients undergoing augmentation and implant installation.

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.

Oral Lichenoid Lesion following Dental Implant Placement and Successful Management with Free Gingival Graft: A Case Report with 10-Year Follow-Up

Titanium and metal alloys are widely used in implants, crowns, and bridges in implant dentistry owing to their biocompatibility. In this case report of a 45-year-old female patient, multiple implants were placed in five different sextants at different time points. Notably, oral lichenoid lesions (OLL) occurred in three sextants following implant placement, strongly suggesting that the dental implants or prostheses were the causative factors for OLL. The lesion was of the reticular type with erythematous surroundings and was symptomatic. Although several conservative treatments, including repeated topical application of corticosteroids, were repeatedly continued, no discernible improvement or alleviation of symptoms was observed. Consequently, surgical excision and replacement of the lesion with a free gingival graft (FGG) harvested from the palatal soft tissue were performed. No clinical symptoms or recurrence of lesions were observed during 10 years of follow-up post-FGG.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.