4.6 Review

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

Journal

MATERIALS
Volume 16, Issue 18, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma16186078

Keywords

dental implants; bisphosphonates; implant failure; marginal bone loss; systematic review; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This systematic review investigated the impact of bisphosphonates on the failure rate and marginal bone loss of dental implants. The findings suggest that patients taking bisphosphonates have a higher risk of implant failure compared to those not taking them.
The purpose of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of bisphosphonates (BPs) on the dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL). An electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, besides a meta-regression in order to verify how the log odds ratio (OR) was associated with follow-up time. The five- and ten-year estimated implant survivals were calculated. The review included 33 publications. Altogether, there were 1727 and 21,986 implants placed in patients taking and not taking BPs, respectively. A pairwise meta-analysis (26 studies) showed that implants in BP patients had a higher failure risk in comparison to non-BP patients (OR 1.653, p = 0.047). There was an estimated decrease of 0.004 in log OR for every additional month of follow-up, although it was not significant (p = 0.259). The global estimated implant survival in patients taking BPs after 5 and 10 years was 94.2% (95% CI, 94.0-94.4) and 90.1% (95% CI, 89.8-90.3), respectively. It was not possible to make any reliable analysis concerning MBL, as only two studies reported MBL results separated by groups. There is a 65.3% higher risk of implant failure in patients taking BPs in comparison to patients not taking this class of drugs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available