The effect of smoking on the marginal bone loss around implant-supported prostheses

Is Corticalization in Radiographs Related to a Higher Risk of Bone Loss around Dental Implants in Smoking Patients? A 5-Year Observation of Radiograph Bone-Texture Changes

BACKGROUND

Currently, the topic of dental implants is widely researched. However, still compromising are the factors that can affect implant loss as a consequence of marginal bone loss. One of the factors is smoking, which has a devastating effect on human health and bone structure. Oral health and jaw condition are also negatively affected by smoking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the peri-implant jawbone corticalization phenomenon in tobacco smokers.

METHODS

A total of 2196 samples from 768 patients with an implant in the neck area were checked, and texture features were analyzed. The corticalization phenomenon was investigated. All analyses were performed in MaZda Software. The influence of corticalization was investigated as a factor on bone structure near the implant neck. The statistical analysis included a feature distribution evaluation, mean (t-test) or median (W-test) comparison, analysis of regression and one-way analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis test as no normal distribution or between-group variance was indicated for the significant differences in the investigated groups. Detected differences or relationships were assumed to be statistically significant when p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The research revealed that MBL was correlated with smoking after 5 years (0.42 mm ± 1.32 mm 0 mm ± 1.25 mm), the Corticalization Index was higher in the smoker group on the day of surgery, and it became higher after 5y of observation (185.98 ± 90.8 and 243.17 ± 155.47). The implant-loss frequency was higher in the group of smokers, too, compared to non-smokers (6.74% and 2.87%). The higher the torque value during the implant placement, the higher the Corticalization Phenomenon Index.

CONCLUSIONS

The research revealed a correlation between smoking and changes in bone structure in radio textures near the implants. The corticalization phenomenon is important, may be detected immediately after implant placement and may be one of the indicators of the implant success rate.

Effect of the implant apical exposure and coverage < or ≥ 2 mm bone graft on transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a 1- to 7-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage less than or greater than 2 mm on implant survival rate and peri-implant bone and soft tissue remodeling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 264 implants in 180 patients who had undergone transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective cohort study. Radiographic assessment was used to categorize the implants into three groups based on apical implant bone height (ABH): ≤ 0 mm, < 2 mm, or ≥ 2 mm. The implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) during short-term (1-3 years) and mid- to long-term (4-7 years) follow-up, and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the effect of implant apex coverage after TSFE.

RESULTS

Group 1 had 56 implants (ABH ≤ 0 mm), group 2 had 123 implants (ABH > 0 mm, but < 2 mm), and group 3 had 85 implants (ABH ≥ 2 mm). There was no significant difference in the implant survival rate between groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 (p = 0.646, p = 0.824, respectively). The MBL during short-term and mid- to long-term follow-up indicated that apex coverage could not be considered a risk factor. Furthermore, apex coverage did not have a significant effect on other clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, our study found that implant apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage levels less than or greater than 2 mm, did not significantly affect implant survival, short-term or mid- to long-term MBL, or peri-implant soft tissue outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on 1- to 7-year data, the study suggests that implant apical exposure and coverage levels of less than or greater than 2 mm bone graft are both valid options for TSFE cases.

Assessment of Bone Loss Around Dental Implant in Smokers

Objectives

This research was done to assess how much bone is lost around dental implants in smokers.

Material and Method

There were 80 participants total in the study, 40 of whom were smokers (Group I) and 40 of who were non-smokers (Group II). By evaluating the patients' clinical and radiographic data, the marginal bone-level measurements were determined. The acquired information underwent statistical analysis.

Results

Smokers were found to have worse overall clinical parameters than non-smokers (P 0.05). Smokers experience more marginal bone loss around implants than non-smokers do.

Conclusion

Smoking has a negative impact on the outcome rate of dental implants.

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

Background and Objectives: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. Smoking also brings negative consequences to oral health, potentially impairing treatment with dental implants. The present review aimed to evaluate the influence of smoking on dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL). Materials and Methods: Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, in addition to meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. Results: The review included 292 publications. Altogether, there were 35,511 and 114,597 implants placed in smokers and in non-smokers, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in smokers had a higher failure risk in comparison with non-smokers (OR 2.402, p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 2.910, p < 0.001), as well as in the mandible (OR 2.866, p < 0.001). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was 0.580 mm (p < 0.001). There was an estimated decrease of 0.001 in OR (p = 0.566) and increase of 0.004 mm (p = 0.279) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up, although without statistical significance. Therefore, there was no clear influence of the follow-up on the effect size (OR) and on MBL MD between groups. Conclusions: Implants placed in smokers present a 140.2% higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-smokers.

Two-Dimensional Analysis of Digital Images through Vector Graphic Editors in Dentistry: New Calibration and Analysis Protocol Based on a Scoping Review

This review was carried out to analyse the functions of three Vector Graphic Editor applications (VGEs) applicable to clinical or research practice, and through this we propose a two-dimensional image analysis protocol in a VGE. We adapted the review method from the PRISMA-ScR protocol. Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched until June 2020 with the following keywords: Vector Graphics Editor, Vector Graphics Editor Dentistry, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Illustrator Dentistry, Coreldraw, Coreldraw Dentistry, Inkscape, Inkscape Dentistry. The publications found described the functions of the following VGEs: Adobe Illustrator, CorelDRAW, and Inkscape. The possibility of replicating the procedures to perform the VGE functions was analysed using each study’s data. The search yielded 1032 publications. After the selection, 21 articles met the eligibility criteria. They described eight VGE functions: line tracing, landmarks tracing, linear measurement recording, angular measurement recording, image calibration, image overlay, file transfer, and vector graphics development. The features offered by the VGEs bring great precision and objectivity to two-dimensional image analysis. The image analysis and editing procedures are currently not protocolised. Thus, a protocol for image calibration and measurement recording is proposed in order to guarantee the protocol’s replication.

An evaluation of peri-implant marginal bone loss according to implant type, surgical technique and prosthetic rehabilitation: a retrospective multicentre and cross-sectional cohort study

To evaluate implant loss (IL) and marginal bone loss (MBL); follow-up period of up to 10 years after prosthetic loading. Retrospective multi-centre cross-sectional cohort study. Double analysis: (1) all the implants (n = 456) were analysed; (2) to allow for possible cluster error, one implant per patient (n = 143) was selected randomly. Statistical analysis: Spearman's correlation coefficient; Kruskal-Wallis (post-hoc U-Mann-Whitney); Chi-square (post-hoc Haberman). (1) Analysing all the implants (456): IL was observed in patients with past periodontitis (6 vs. 2.2%, p < 0.05), short implants (12 vs. 2.8%, p < 0.001) and when using regenerative surgery (11.3 vs. 2.9%, p < 0.001); greater MBL was observed among smokers (0.39 ± 0.52 vs. 0.2 ± 0.29, p < 0.01), maxillary implants (0.28 ± 0.37 vs. 0.1 ± 0.17, p < 0.0001), anterior region implants (0.32 ± 0.36 vs. 0.21 ± 0.33, p < 0.001), external connection implants (0.2 ± 0.29 vs. 0.63 ± 0.59, p < 0.0001), and 2-3 years after loading (p < 0.0001). (2) analysing the cluster (143): IL was observed in smokers (18.8 vs. 3.5%, p < 0.05), splinted fixed crowns (12.9%, p < 0.01), short implants (22.2 vs. 4.0%, p < 0.01) and when using regenerative surgery (19.2 vs. 3.4%, p < 0.01); greater MBL was observed in maxillary implants (0.25 ± 0.35 vs. 0.11 ± 0.18, p < 0.05), in the anterior region (p < 0.05), in the first 3 years (p < 0.01), in external connection implants (0.72 ± 0.71 vs. 0.19 ± 0.26, p < 0.01) and in short implants (0.38 ± 0.31 vs. 0.2 ± 0.32, p < 0.05). There is greater risk in smokers, patients with past periodontal disease, external connection implants, the use of short implants and when regenerative techniques are used. To prevent MBL and IL, implantologists should be very meticulous in indicating implants in patients affected by these host factors.

Prevalence of oral conditions among methamphetamine users: NHANES 2009-2014

OBJECTIVES

Methamphetamine (MA) is a widely used illicit drug and a nationwide public health concern. Although dental complications are consistently reported among MA users, yet limited nationally representative studies on the associations between MA use and oral health currently exist.

METHODS

Using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009-2014, we analyzed 8,762 respondents aged 30-64 years who had completed a periodontal examination. MA use was self-reported; periodontitis, untreated caries, and missing teeth were assessed by calibrated dentists. Descriptive statistics as well as multivariable regression analyses were performed. Data were weighted to yield representative estimates of the US adult population.

RESULTS

Overall 7.8 percent of US adults aged ≥30 years had ever used MA. Ever-use prevalence was higher among males, whites, and individuals below the federal poverty level. Established MA users had a higher prevalence of untreated dental caries (36.6 percent), any periodontitis (54.8 percent), and severe periodontitis (12.2 percent) than those who had never used MA. The prevalence of any periodontitis was higher among current MA users (PR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.05-1.62) than those who never used MA. Prevalence of untreated dental caries was higher among current MA users (PR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.10-2.13) and established users (PR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.02-1.48) than never users. Taking MA orally and/or through injection was associated with higher odds of severe periodontitis than orally only (AOR: 3.72; CI: 1.79-7.75).

CONCLUSIONS

MA users had a higher prevalence of periodontitis and dental caries. Continued research assessing the relationship between MA use and oral health can inform clinical interventions and management of dental diseases in MA users.

Evaluation of marginal bone loss around dental implants in cigarette smokers and nonsmokers. A comparative study

Background:

The overall success of osteointegrated dental implants depends on various factors. The deleterious effects of smoking on wound healing after the tooth extraction and its association with poor quality of bone are well documented. Similar effects of tobacco use on the success of dental implants are expected. Cigarette smoke mainly contains nicotine that delays the bone healing and increases the rate of infections at the implant insertion site.

Aim:

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate and compare the marginal bone loss around dental implants in smokers and nonsmokers.

Materials and Methods:

The study was conducted on 500 individuals who received dental implants in maxillary or mandibular edentulous regions from 2010 to 2017. The sample was divided into two groups: Group I (smokers, n = 280) and Group II (nonsmokers, n = 220). Marginal bone loss was measured on mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual side of each implant using periapical radiographs 3 months after loading, 6 months after loading, and 12 months after loading.

Results:

The crestal bone loss around dental implants was significantly greater in smokers (Group I) as compared to nonsmokers (Group II) irrespective of the duration of loading (P < 0.001). Marginal bone loss did vary significantly by location in either groups.

Conclusion:

Smoking overall lowers the success rate of dental implants. Increased duration and frequency of smoking leads to a greater degree of marginal bone loss around dental implants.