METHODOLOGY: Five electronic databases were searched for studies that compared implant outcomes in patients with differing HbA1c values. Research quality was evaluated using Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were performed for survival rate, plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Categorical dose-response meta-analysis (DRMA) was conducted according to length of follow-up.
RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Prospective studies were mostly of moderate quality, but non-prospective papers had serious to critical risk of bias. Survival rate was high for the first 3 years (92.6%-100%) for patients with HbA1c less than 8%. Meta-analysis revealed worsening clinical parameters with increasing HbA1c. DRMA further established a significant dose-response relationship between glycemic control with BOP (10% more bleeding, 95% CI 0.05-0.16, P = .008) and MBL (0.05 mm more bone loss, 95% CI 0.01-0.09, P = .002) per HbA1c category, but no association with probing pocket depth. Osseointegration progressed at a slower rate, and inflammatory cytokines and bone biomarkers were adversely affected in patients with HbA1c above 8%.
CONCLUSION: Moderate evidence suggests a high short-term survival but possible dose-response trend of worsening BOP and MBL in association with glycemic control. Clinically, HbA1c values must be considered for risk assessment before placement and throughout the lifespan of the implant placed in a patient with diabetes.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate crestal bone loss (CBL) around zirconia dental implants and clinical periimplant inflammatory parameters.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The focus question addressed was, "Do zirconia implants maintain crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health?" Databases were searched for articles from 1977 through September 2014 with different combinations of the following MeSH terms: "dental implants," "zirconium," "alveolar bone loss," "periodontal attachment loss," "periodontal pocket," "periodontal index." Letters to the editor, case reports, commentaries, review articles, and articles published in languages other than English were excluded.
RESULTS: Thirteen clinical studies were included. In 8 of the studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was comparable between baseline and follow-up. In the other 5 studies, the CBL around zirconia implants was significantly higher at follow-up. Among the studies that used titanium implants as controls, 2 studies showed significantly higher CBL around zirconia implants, and in 1 study, the CBL around zirconia and titanium implants was comparable. The reported implant survival rates for zirconia implants ranged between 67.6% and 100%. Eleven studies selectively reported the periimplant inflammatory parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: Because of the variations in study design and methodology, it was difficult to reach a consensus regarding the efficacy of zirconia implants in maintaining crestal bone levels and periimplant soft tissue health.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-seven individuals (42 individuals consuming NW and 45 controls) were included. Clinical (plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and clinical attachment loss) and radiographic (marginal bone loss) periodontal parameters were compared among NW and control groups. Gingival specimens were taken from subjects in NW and control groups, assessed for ICTP and CTX levels (using ELISA) and analyzed using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The significance of differences in periodontal parameters between the groups was determined using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The percent loss of dry mass over exposure time and the rate of release of ICTP and CTX from all groups were compared using the paired t-test to examine the effects of exposure time.
RESULTS: Clinical and radiographic periodontal parameters were significantly higher in the NW group than the control group (P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The test group included 9 participants rehabilitated by maxillary CD opposing mandibular IRO, while the control group consisted of 4 participants with CDs. Blood flow was measured by laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) after denture removal for 0, 30, 60, and 90 minutes. RRR was quantified as reduction in bone volume a year post-treatment. The measurement of blood flow was then compared to the quantification of RRR.
RESULTS: The mean blood flow measure for the IRO group was significantly lower than CD after immediate denture removal and 30 minutes later. After 60 minutes, the mean difference was not significant between groups, and at 90 minutes, the mean blood flow of both groups equalized to reach a steady state of 377 BPU. The mandibular IRO had reduced the initial blood flow measure in the opposing anterior maxilla mucosa to almost a quarter (103 BPU) of the steady state value (377 BPU) compared to the CD, which reduced it to only about one half (183 BPU), suggesting greater blood flow disturbance in the IRO group. This result is in tandem with the greater reduction of bone volume observed in the IRO group, which was 7.3 ± 1.3% after a year, almost three times higher than CD group at 2.6 ± 1.7%.
CONCLUSION: IRO may cause significantly higher blood flow disturbance than CD and may have contributed to greater RRR in the anterior maxilla.