Risk of Dental Implant Failure Associated With Medication Use

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.

Failure Rate of Dental Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The present systematic review and meta-analysis has systematically reviewed and analyzed dental implant failure for the implants placed in the esthetic zone. An electronic database search was performed in PubMed and ScienceDirect, including a manual search through the references using appropriate keywords and the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcomes) format for the inclusion criteria. A total of 11 relevant articles were included. The quality of the randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool while the quality of non-randomized studies was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa scale. Of the 11 articles included, 5 were RCTs, and 6 were non-randomized. The overall failure rate was found to be 2% (95% CI; 0.00-0.03%). The percentage marginal bone loss was estimated to be 1% (95% CI; 0.00 - 0.02%) and the mean and proportion pink esthetic scores were approximately 11.75 (0.43%) with 2% mid-facial soft tissue recession and the mesial and distal papillary recession was 0.02% and 0.01%, respectively. Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, the rate of dental implant failure for implant placement in the esthetic zone was minimal. In addition, 1% proportional marginal bone loss and moderately high esthetic scores were found.

Effect of agents affecting bone homeostasis on short- and long-term implant failure

OBJECTIVES

To review the current evidence on the relationship between agents that affect bone homeostasis and dental implant failures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches for bisphosphonates, denosumab, methotrexate, corticosteroids, romosozumab, sunitinib, and bevacizumab were performed using PubMed, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library), Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (Cochrane Library) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). Manual searches were also conducted to complement the digital searches for recent issues.

RESULTS

Previous publications suggested that bisphosphonates do not compromise the survival of dental implants. However, one study documented an increased risk of implant failure in patients who had received high-dose of intravenous bisphosphonate therapy after implant rehabilitation. There has been an issue of MRONJ around implants in patients who have successfully received implant therapy before and after antiresorptive therapy, leading to late implant failure. Despite evidence on the detrimental effects of denosumab, methotrexate and corticosteroids on bone metabolism, their role in implant survival is not conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is insufficient evidence to establish a potential connection between agents that affects bone homeostasis and implant failure. However, some studies have reported negative results for implant therapy. In addition, implant-related sequestration in patients who received anti-resorptive therapy, despite of successful osseointegration, is also noticeable. Although limited studies are available at present, clinicians should still carefully consider the potential hazards and take appropriate precautions to minimize the risks associated with the medications and implant therapy.

Antiresorptive therapy and dental implant survival: an up to 20-year retrospective cohort study in women

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of antiresorptive treatment on the survival of plateau-root form dental implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients undergoing antiresorptive therapy via oral or intravenous administration as well as patients not undergoing antiresorptive therapy and healthy control patients were included in this retrospective cohort study. In total, 1472 implants placed in 631 postmenopausal patients (M: 66.42 ± 9.10 years old), who were followed for a period of up to 20 years (8.78 ± 5.68 years). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed, and univariate and multivariate Cox regression, clustered by each patient, was used to evaluate and study factors affecting the survival of their implants.

RESULTS

Implants placed in patients undergoing oral antiresorptive treatment presented significantly higher survival rates, than implants placed in the osteoporosis/osteopenia control cohort (p value < 0.001), and similar survival rates, when compared to healthy controls (p value = 0.03). Additionally, clustered univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis also revealed higher implant survival when oral antiresorptive drugs (p value = 0.01 and 0.007, respectively) were used, and lower implant survival in the presence of untreated osteoporosis/osteopenia (p value = 0.002 and 0.005, respectively). Overall, the 20-year implant survival in osteoporotic patients undergoing antiresorptive therapy was 94%. For the failed implants, newly replaced implants in patients under antiresorptive treatment presented a 10-year survival of 89%.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term plateau-root form implant survival in osteoporotic patients taking oral antiresorptives was similar to a healthy population and significantly higher than the untreated controls.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These results suggest that plateau-root form implants provide a robust solution for treating tooth loss in patients, who are undergoing antiresorptive therapy.

Effects of Drugs and Chemotherapeutic Agents on Dental Implant Osseointegration: Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Dental implants have been one of the most popular treatments for rehabilitating individuals with single missing teeth or fully edentulous jaws since their introduction. As more implant patients are well-aged and take several medications due to various systemic conditions, clinicians should be mindful of possible drug implications on bone remodeling and osseointegration.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aims to study and review some desirable and some unwelcomed implications of medicine on osseointegration.

METHODS

A broad search for proper relevant studies were conducted in four databases, including Web of Science, Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

Some commonly prescribed medicines such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), glucocorticoids, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), anticoagulants, metformin, and chemotherapeutic agents may jeopardize osseointegration. On the contrary, some therapeutic agents such as anabolic, anti-catabolic, or dual anabolic and anti-catabolic agents may enhance osseointegration and increase the treatment's success rate.

CONCLUSION

Systemic medications that enhance osseointegration include mineralization promoters and bone resorption inhibitors. On the other hand, medications often given to the elderly with systemic problems might interfere with osseointegration, leading to implant failure. However, to validate the provided research, more human studies with a higher level of evidence are required.

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.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

This comprehensive review of the 2019 restorative dental literature is offered to inform busy dentists regarding remarkable publications and noteworthy progress made in the profession. Developed by the Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry, each author brings discipline-specific expertise to 1 of 8 sections of the report: (1) prosthodontics; (2) periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; (3) implant dentistry; (4) dental materials and therapeutics; (5) occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; (6) sleep-related breathing disorders; (7) oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and (8) dental caries and cariology. The report targets important information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions. Each review is not intended to stand alone but to update interested readers so that they may visit source material when greater detail is desired. As the profession moves toward evidence-based clinical decision-making, an incredible volume of potentially valuable dental literature continues to increase. It is the intention of this review and its authors to provide assistance in negotiating the extensive dental literature published in 2019. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in the clinical management of dental patients.

Effects of different antidepressant classes on dental implant failure: A retrospective clinical study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have suggested an association between taking antidepressants and dental implant failure. This study aimed to investigate the association of different antidepressant classes with dental implant failure.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients that received dental implants at the University of Florida from 2011 to 2016. The variables of implant failure, antidepressant use and classes (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRI], serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRI], tricyclic antidepressants [TCA], atypical antidepressants [AA], and monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAOI]), age, sex, smoking, mild systemic diseases, and implant location were obtained from patients' records. Odds ratio (OR) and confidence interval (CI) of implant failure in patients taking different antidepressant classes, in relationship to non-antidepressant users, were estimated, and the influence of multiple variables on implant failure were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 771 patients and 1,820 implants were evaluated. The statistically significant predictors for implant failure included smoking (OR = 5.221), use of antidepressants (OR = 4.285), posterior maxilla location (OR = 2.911), mild systemic disease (OR = 2.648), and age (OR = 1.037) (P <0.05). The frequency of implant failure was 33.3% in TCA users, 31.3% in SNRI users, 6.3% in SSRI users, 5.2% in Atypical antidepressant users, and 3.9% in non-users. Significant associations were observed between the use of SNRI (OR: 11.07; 95% CI: 3.265 to 33.82) and TCA (OR: 12.16; 95% CI: 1.503 to 71.58) and implant failure (P <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Users of antidepressants were at higher risk of implant failure than non-users. Patients taking SNRI and TCA were at the highest risk of implant loss, when compared with non-users. Conclusions about TCA, however, are based on a limited number of cases.