4.5 Article

Marginal bone loss around dental implants: comparison between diabetic and non-diabetic patients-a retrospective clinical study

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 27, Issue 6, Pages 2833-2841

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-04872-z

Keywords

Diabetes; Dental implants; Marginal bone loss; Retrospective clinical study

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This retrospective study aimed to compare the marginal bone loss around dental implants in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. Jaw, diabetes, bruxism, and smoking were found to significantly influence bone loss over time.
ObjectivesThe aim of the present retrospective study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants in a group of diabetic patients in relation to a matched group of non-diabetic patients.Materials and methodsThe present dental record-based retrospective study included patients selected from individuals treated with dental implants at one specialist clinic in Malmo, Sweden. Patients were excluded if they had history of periodontitis and/or were treated for periodontal disease. The study group included 710 implants installed in 180 patients (mean age 60.3 +/- 13.0 years), 349 implants in 90 diabetic (21 T1DM and 69 T2DM patients), and 361 implants in 90 non-diabetic patients.ResultsThe results suggested that jaw (greater MBL in the maxilla), diabetes (greater MBL for diabetic patients, and worse for T1DM patients), bruxism (greater MBL for bruxers), and smoking (greater MBL for smokers and former smokers) had a statistically significant influence on MBL over time.ConclusionsPatients with diabetes have an estimated greater MBL over time compared to non-diabetic patients. The difference was greater in patients with diabetes type 1 compared to patients with diabetes type 2. Bruxism, smoking, and implant location (maxilla) were also associated with a higher loss of marginal bone around implants over time.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available