4.4 Article

Antihypertensive Medications and the Survival Rate of Osseointegrated Dental Implants: A Cohort Study

Journal

CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH
Volume 18, Issue 6, Pages 1171-1182

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12414

Keywords

antihypertensive drugs; epidemiology; hypertension; medical devices; multilevel; osseointegrated implants

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council
  2. Clifford Wong Fellowship
  3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  4. Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA) Bridge Funding
  5. Le Reseau de recherche en sante buccodentaire et osseuse (RSBO)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeAntihypertensive drugs in general are beneficial for bone formation and remodeling, and are associated with lower risk of bone fractures. As osseointegration is influenced by bone metabolism, this study aimed to investigate the association between antihypertensive drugs and the survival rate of osseointegrated implants. Materials and MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included a total of 1,499 dental implants in 728 patients (327 implants in 142 antihypertensive-drugs-users and 1,172 in 586 nonusers). Multilevel mixed effects parametric survival analyses were used to test the association between antihypertensive drugs use and implant failure adjusting for potential confounders. ResultsOnly 0.6% of the implants failed in patients using antihypertensive drugs while 4.1% failed in nonusers. A higher survival rate of dental implants was observed among users of antihypertensive drugs [HR (95% CI): 0.12 (0.03-0.49)] compared to nonusers. ConclusionsOur findings suggest that treatment with antihypertensive drugs may be associated with an increased survival rate of osseointegrated implants. To our knowledge, this could be the first study showing that the systemic use of a medication could be associated with higher survival rate of dental implants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available