Rehabilitation with Single Implants in Smokers: A 5-year Retrospective Study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of periodontology, 2018
It is hypothesized that peri-implant soft tissue inflammation and crestal bone loss (CBL) are higher around adjacent implants placed in cigarette-smokers compared with never-smokers. The aim of the present 5 years' follow-up retrospective clinical study was to compare the peri-implant soft tissue status and crestal bone loss (CBL) around adjacent implants placed in cigarette-smokers and never-smokers. Cigarette-smokers (Group-1) and never-smokers (Group-2) with adjacent dental implants were included. Demographic information regarding age, gender, duration of smoking (pack years), daily frequency of tooth brushing and most recent visit to a dentist or dental hygienist were recorded using a questionnaire. Information regarding implant dimensions (length × diameter), duration of implants in function, loading protocol (and type of restoration was recorded. Peri-implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) and mesial and distal CBL were measured. P < 0....
Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2020
Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the survival and peri-implant bone loss of implants with a fluoride-modified surface in smokers and non-smokers. Material and Methods: All patients referred for implant treatment between November 2004 and 2007 were scrutinized. All implants were placed by the same surgeon (B.C.). The single inclusion criterion was a follow-up time of at least 10 years. Implant survival, health, and bone loss were evaluated by an external calibrated examiner (S.W.) during recall visits. Radiographs taken at recall visits were compared with the post-surgical ones. Implant success was based on two arbitrarily chosen success criteria for bone loss (≤1 mm and ≤2 mm bone loss after 10 years). Implant survival in smokers and non-smokers was compared using the log-rank test. Both non-parametric tests and fixed model analysis were used to assess bone loss in both groups. Results: A total of 453 implants in 121 patients were included for survival analysis, and 397 implants in 121 patients were included for peri-implant bone-loss analysis. After a mean follow-up time of 11.38 years (SD 0.78; range 10.00-13.65), 33 implants out of 453 initially placed had failed in 21 patients, giving an overall survival rate of 92.7% and 82.6% on the implant and patient level, respectively. Cumulative 10 years' survival rate was 81% on the patient level and 91% on the implant level. The hazard of implant loss in the maxilla was 5.64 times higher in smokers compared to non-smokers (p = 0.003). The hazard of implant loss for implants of non-smokers was 2.92 times higher in the mandible compared to the maxilla (p = 0.01). The overall mean bone loss was 0.97 mm (SD 1.79, range 0-17) at the implant level and 0.90 mm (SD 1.39, range 0-7.85) at the patient level. Smokers lost significantly more bone compared to non-smokers in the maxilla (p = 0.024) but not in the mandible. Only the maxilla showed a significant difference in the probability of implant success between smokers and non-smokers (≤1 mm criterion p = 0.003, ≤2 mm criterion p = 0.007). Taking jaw into account, implants in smokers experienced a 2.6 higher risk of developing peri-implantitis compared to non-smokers (p = 0.053). Conclusion: Dental implants with a fluoride-modified surface provided a high 10 years' survival with limited bone loss. Smokers were, however, more prone to peri-implant bone loss and experienced a higher rate of implant failure, especially in the upper jaw. The overall bone loss over time was significantly higher in smoking patients, which might be suggestive for a higher peri-implantitis risk. Hence, smoking cessation
BMC Oral Health
Background This study examined how smoking affects esthetics, peri-implant health, gingiva around the implant, and implant disease risk assessment in patients with implants. Methods The study included two hundred ninety-eight implants of systemically healthy patients aged between 38 and 62 who applied to the Periodontology Clinic and whose functionally prosthesis-loaded implants had been at least six months and at most five years old. Implants of patients with bruxism were not included in the study. Implants are divided into two according to the patient’s smoking. Vestibule depth around the implant, keratinized gingival thickness and width, gingival recession, bleeding on probing, pocket depth, and gingival index by a sole clinician. The pink esthetic score, peri-implant disease risk assessment, and implant health scale were also examined to measure implant esthetics and success. Results There was a statistically significant difference in the implant disease risk assesment scores fo...
Smoking as an environmental hazard to the periodontal and peri-implant tissues: A brief review
World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2021
While dental plaque is considered the etiological factor for the development of periodontal and peri-implant diseases, many studies from recent years point to smoking as the most significant environmental factor contributing to disease severity. This effect is evident at the epidemiological level as well as on our understanding of the biological mechanisms involved. The present review presents abundant scientific evidence showing that smoking negatively affects the local blood supply, interferes with the reaction of the immune system to bacterial insult, is toxic to gingival and periodontal ligament cells, impedes the response of the periodontal attachment apparatus to treatment, and is linked to dental implant failure. Over the past 30 years, more than 200 million people have died as a result of smoking tobacco use. There are more than 1 billion current smokers worldwide and these numbers are likely to increase over the coming years. And yet, the effect of smoking on periodontal an...
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2009
Objectives: To evaluate the implant survival rate, periodontal and radiographic parameters of non-submerged screw implants with two different surfaces (TPS and SLA) in periodontally non-susceptible patients (NSP) and in patients with chronic adult periodontitis (CAP) or with generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP). Material and methods: In 110 healthy partially edentulous subjects, 68 patients with CAP and 16 patients with GAP, a total of 513 implants were installed and followed for on average 48.1 AE 25.9 months. Only fixed partial dentures were used as suprastructures. All patients were offered a supportive periodontal maintenance program. Smoking habits, health impairment, plaque score, bleeding on probing (BOP), type of surface, bone score, bone loss on radiographs and the number of failed implants were noted. Results: Implant survival in the NSP and CAP group was 98% and 96% after 140 months (NS), but only 80% after 100 months in the GAP group (P ¼ 0.0026). The overall rate of implant loss was 4.7%, but 15.25% in the GAP group (6/16 patients). The average marginal bone loss for all implants was 0.12 AE 0.71 mm on the mesial side and 0.11 AE 0.68 mm on the distal side. Bone loss/year was 0.08 AE 0.31 and 0.07 AE 0.3 mm in the NSP group, but 0.17 AE 0.2 and 0.17 AE 0.19 mm in the GAP group. Only in the GAP group, was bone loss significantly related to BOP, age, inflammation, presence of plaque, probing depth. Implants with a TPS surface had a lower survival than implants with an SLA surface (93% vs. 97%; P ¼ 0.06), especially in the GAP group (80% vs. 83%; P ¼ 0.005). Smoking habits had a significant influence on implant survival only in the GAP group (P ¼ 0.07), declining in current smokers to 63%, and to 78% in former smokers. Overall, impaired general health had no significant influence (P ¼ 0.85). However, impaired health further reduced implant survival in the GAP group (survival: 71%). In a statistical model to predict the chance for implant failing, only periodontal classification (P ¼ 0.012) and implant surface type (P ¼ 0.027) were significant. Conclusion: Periodontally healthy patients and patients with CAP show no difference in peri-implant variables and implant survival rate, but patients with GAP have more periimplant pathology, more marginal bone loss and a lower implant survival implant rate. SLA surface had a better prognosis than the TPS surface.
Assessment of Smoking Effect on Dental Implant Survival Rate
International journal of current research and review, 2021
Introduction: Dental implants are most commonly used nowadays for the replacement of missing teeth. The survival rate of the implant can be depending on several factors such as bone quality, implant material used, and personal oral habits such as smoking and oral hygiene. Objectives: This clinical study was conducted to evaluate the outcome of smoking on dental implant survival rate. Methods: This prospective study was done from 2008 to 2018. Information about implant type, radiographic and clinical findings and smoking habits were noted. The data were statistically assessed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software by International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) 20 version with Chi-square test at P ≤ 0.01. Results: In our study, there were 125 (62.5%) male and 75 (37.5%) female participants, in that 50% were nonsmokers and 50% were smokers. Of 200 patients, 80 were successful and 20 were failures. The success of implant was significantly more in nonsmokers than smokers (P>0.05*). The mobility was higher in smokers compared to nonsmokers which were statistically significant (P>0.001). The failure rate of the implant was more with increased frequency and duration of smoking, which was statistically significant (P>0.05). Conclusion: The present study indicated that a greater risk of implant failure was related to increased frequency and longer duration of smoking habit due to bone resorption.