Influence of smoking on osseointegrated implant failure: a meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to examine the influence of smoking on osseointegrated implant failure by performing a meta-analysis. A computerized literature search using PubMed database (in English) and Japana Centra Revuo Medicina (in Japanese) was carried out to identify all relevant studies. Among 175 studies identified and chosen for detailed review, 19 were appropriate for inclusion in our meta-analysis. When smokers were compared with non-smokers, odds ratio (OR) for osseointegrated implant failure was significantly elevated (OR 2.17, 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.67-2.83). Seven studies were appropriate to examine the influence of intra-oral location (maxillary arch vs. mandibular arch) of implant failure on smoking. The OR for implant failure occurring in the maxillary arch was significantly elevated (OR 2.06, 95% CI, 1.61-2.65), whereas the OR in the mandibular arch did not demonstrate a significant increased risk associated with smoking (OR 1.32, 95% CI, 0.72-2.4). Our meta-analysis revealed a significant relationship between smoking and the risk of osseointegrated implant failure, more particularly those implants located in the maxillary arch.     

Smoking and complications of endosseous dental implants

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of the complications and survival rate related to dental implants among smokers and non-smokers, and to evaluate the influence of smoking by analyzing data of 959 implants placed in 261 patients during the years 1995 to 1998. METHODS: Patients were divided into 3 groups: non-smokers, mild smokers (up to 10 cigarettes per day) and heavy smokers (more than 10 cigarettes per day); smokers were divided into 2 subgroups according to duration of smoking (less or more than 10 years). Complications included minor (spontaneous implant exposure), major (spontaneous implant exposure requiring surgical intervention), and implant failure. The influence of smoking was analyzed for the type of implant cover screw and immediate versus late implantation. RESULTS: The overall failure rate was 2% for non-smokers and 4% for all smokers. Minor and major complications were found in higher percentages (46%) in the smoking groups than in the non-smoking group (31%). A significantly higher incidence of complications was found among smokers who received dental implants with high cover screws (63%) compared to those who received dental implants with flat cover screws (27%). CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes a relationship between implant complications and smoking, implant type (external or internal hex), and time of implantation as significant factors. A higher incidence of complications was found in the smoking group, especially in implants that had a high cover screw. Most complications will not lead to failures. Immediate implants failed less frequently than non-immediate implants. Limiting or reducing smoking habits will decrease complications of endosseous dental implants.     

The relationship between cigarette smoking and dental implant failure

This paper examines the effect of tobacco use on the failure rates of dental implants. A review of 56 dental implant patients with a total of 187 endosseous dental implants, placed over a four year period, demonstrated a significant association between increased implant failure rates and cigarette smoking with failure rates of 16.6% in smokers compared to 6.9% in non-smokers. Also implant length was shown to be a significant factor with shorter implants (< or = 10 mm) being more susceptible to failure in smokers. A chi-square test was used for data analysis. Current recommendations that should be given to implant patients who smoke are included.     

The effect of smoking on achieving osseointegration of surface-modified implants: a clinical report

PURPOSE: The present study evaluated the effect of smoking on achieving initial osseointegration when surface-modified dental implants were used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During an 18-month period in a private practice setting 1,183 implants were placed in 461 patients. The group of smokers consisted of patients who smoked a half pack or more of cigarettes per day. RESULTS: The overall success rate for smokers and non-smokers in achieving osseointegration was 98.1%. Ninety-seven percent of the implants placed in smokers osseointegrated successfully, and 98.4% of implants placed in non-smokers osseointegrated successfully (P < .05). DISCUSSION: The surface of an implant may be a critical determinant for achieving osseointegration in patients who smoke. CONCLUSION: It appears from this short-term retrospective study that smoking does not play a significant role in achieving the osseointegration of surface-modified dental implants.     

Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: The purpose of the current study is to assess which vertical bone augmentation techniques are most effective for restoring atrophic posterior areas of the mandible with dental implants and compare these procedures with alternative treatments. Methods: Electronic literature searches in PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid, and the Cochrane Library were conducted to identify all relevant articles published up to July 1, 2015. Eligibility was based on inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. The primary outcome variables were implant and prosthetic failure. After data extraction, meta‐analyses were performed. Results: Out of 527 potentially eligible papers, 14 randomized clinical trials were included. Out of these 14 studies, four trials assessed short implants (5 to 8 mm) as an alternative to vertical bone augmentation in sites with a residual ridge height of 5 to 8 mm. No statistically significant differences were found in implant (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 3.31; P = 0.98; I²: 0%) or prosthetic failure (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.96; P = 0.43; I²: 0%) after 12 months of loading. However, complications at treated sites increased with the augmentation procedures (OR: 8.33; 95% CI: 3.85 to 20.0; P <0.001; I²: 0%). There was no evidence of any vertical augmentation procedure being of greater benefit than any other for the primary outcomes (implant and prosthetic failure). Conclusions: Short implants in the posterior area of the mandible seem to be preferable to vertical augmentation procedures, which present similar implant and prosthetic failure rates but greater morbidity. All the vertical augmentation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results.     

The effect of cigarette smoking on dental implants and related surgery

Cigarette smoking is still considered a common habit. Of smokers, increased plaque accumulation, higher incidence of gingivitis and periodontitis, higher rate of tooth loss, and increased resorption of the alveolar ridge have been found in the oral cavity. Cigarette smoking may adversely affect wound healing, and, thus, jeopardize the success of bone grafting and dental implantation. Bone grafts and sinus lift operations are both common and well-documented procedures before dental implant placement. Heat as well as toxic by-products of cigarette smoking, such as nicotine, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen cyanide, have been implicated as risk factors for impaired healing, and, thus, may affect the success and complications of those surgical procedures. An association among dental implants, grafting procedures (i.e., bone grafts, maxillary sinuses augmentation), and history of smoking has been reported. A higher degree of complication, or implant failure rates, were found in smokers with and without bone grafts. The relationship between cigarette smoking and implant-related surgical procedures, including the incidence of complications associated with these procedures, will be described and discussed based on relevant literature and results of our recent studies.     

LEVELS OF SMOKING AND PERI‑IMPLANT MARGINAL BONE LOSS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

AimThis systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine if there was a significantly enhanced risk of peri?implant marginal bone loss (MBL) due to the increased number of cigarettes smoked per day.Materials and MethodsSix databases, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and ProQuest, were searched until February, 2021. The search terms “dental implant, oral implant, smoking, smoker, non-smoker, marginal bone loss and crestal bone loss” were used in combination to seek the articles providing data for MBL related to the smoking habit. Articles were excluded if the quantity of cigarettes smoked per day was not reported. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool the estimates of mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsEight studies were included for qualitative and 5 for quantitative synthesis. The meta‐analyses revealed higher levels of MBL in patients who smoked <10 or >10 cigarettes/day than in non-smokers (<10: (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.69-0.03 and >10: MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.96- -0.19). There was a significant risk of MBL between patients who smoked >10 and <10 cigarettes/day (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.47-0.01).ConclusionIt seems the risk of MBL is steadily increasing as daily smoking increases.     

Impact of IL-1 genotype and smoking status on the prognosis of osseointegrated implants

AIM: This study evaluated the impact of the IL-1 genotype and smoking status on the prognosis and development of complications of osseointegrated implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical charts of 180 consecutively admitted patients were analyzed with respect to the occurrence of biological complications in conjunction with oral implants. Biologic complications were defined as clinical conditions with suppuration from the peri-implant sulcus, development of a fistula or peri-implantitis with radiologic bone loss. All patients had received one or more ITI dental implants, which had been in function for at least 8 (range: 8-15) years. This patient population had received 292 implants. From these, 51 implants in 34 patients showed late (infectious) biologic complications, and 241 implants had survived without any biologic complications at all. RESULTS: Of the 180 patients, 53 were smokers, who were subdivided in a series of classes according to their intensity of smoking and 127 were never smokers. Sixty-four of 180 (36%) patients tested positive for the IL-1 genotype polymorphism. This prevalence corresponds to previous reports for the prevalence of European descent populations. The results for the non-smoking group indicated no significant correlation between implant complications and a positive IL-1 genotype. However, there was a clear association for heavy smokers between a positive IL-1 genotype and implant complications. 6 of 12 or half of the heavy smokers and IL-1 genotype-positive patients had either an implant failure, i.e. loss of implant, or a biologic complication during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have led to the conclusion that there is a synergistic effect between a positive IL-1 genotype and smoking that puts dental implants at a significantly higher risk of developing biologic complications during function.     

For which clinical indications in dental implantology is the use of bone substitute materials scientifically substantiated?

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to provide a basis for an expert consensus group to evaluate the influence of different particulate bone substitute materials in local bone augmentation procedures in conjunction with dental implant placement on implant survival and histology. Materials and methods: The following indications were analysed with either simultaneous or delayed dental implant placement: external or internal maxillary sinus floor elevation and vertical and/or lateral alveolar ridge augmentation. Retro- and prospective studies written in English or German including 20 or more patients (for randomised, controlled trials and prospective, split-mouth trials with 5 or more patients) were eligible for this review. The review focused on (1) performance of the augmentation procedures (total augmentation loss, gain of vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge dimensions, histomorphometric data of the augmented areas) and (2) dental implant success criteria (survival rates of the inserted dental implants, peri-implant bone levels under functional loading). Results: From over 3800 abstracts identified, 72 full-text articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were further evaluated (52 studies on maxillary sinus floor elevation procedures and 21 studies on vertical and/or lateral alveolar ridge augmentation). The majority of the included studies were prospective studies including a rather limited number of patients and short observation periods. Conclusions: There is a high level of evidence that survival rates of dental implants placed into augmented areas are comparable with survival rates of implants placed into pristine bone. For maxillary sinus floor elevation, all investigated bone substitute materials performed equally well compared with bone, with high dental implant survival rates and adequate histomorphometric data. For the alveolar ridge augmentation procedures, the heterogeneity of the available data did not allow identification of a superior grafting technique.     

Preventive dentistry: what do Australian patients endorse and recall of smoking cessation advice by their dentists?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate patients' views regarding dentists' smoking cessation advice. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire. SETTING: One hundred and thirty five dental practices in Sydney Australia. Subjects Two thousand, four hundred and fifty one dental patients. RESULTS: One thousand, one hundred and sixty pre-consultation questionnaires were obtained (RR=80%), 302 (26%) were self-reported smokers. From these, 623 post-consultation questionnaires were returned (RR = 54%). Most patients expected dentists to be interested in their smoking status (n = 847/1160, 73%, 95% CI: 70% to 76%) and to discuss smoking with them (n = 713/1160, 61%, 95% CI: 59% to 64%), however, smokers were significantly less likely to respond as such compared with non-smokers (P < 0.001). Smokers and non-smokers equally would not change dentist even if asked about their smoking status opportunistically (59% versus 62%) (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.22). Less than one third of all smokers would try to quit if their dentist suggested they do so (n = 90/302, 30%, 95% CI: 25% to 35%). Smokers' recall of quit advice from their recent consultation was low (n = 22/124, 18%). CONCLUSIONS : Smoking cessation advice by dentists is not self-evidently effective. These findings behove interventional research to ascertain efficacy of smoking cessation advice delivered by dentists before admonishing changes in routine clinical practice.     

Tobacco as a risk factor for survival of dental implants

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that smoking habits represent an increased risk for impaired bone healing and implant failure. This study aimed to evaluate the implant survival rates among non-smokers (NS) and different kinds of smokers (S). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made over a 5-year period of the clinical and radiographic findings corresponding to 66 consecutive patients who had received a total of 165 dental implants. Patients were divided into two groups: S, 40 patients (95 implants; 58% of the sample); and NS, 26 patients (70 implants; 42% of the sample). Also, S and NS were classified into four different categories according to daily tobacco use: NS, 26 patients and 70 implants; light smokers (LS), 23 patients and 44 implants; moderate smokers (MS), 11 patients and 25 implants; and heavy smokers (HS), six patients and 26 implants. RESULTS: Sixteen implants (9.7%) failed and had to be removed. Group S showed 15 failures and a success rate of 84.2%. Group NS had only one failure, giving a success rate of 98.6%. The risk of implant failure was approximately 31% in those who smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day. HS showed statistical differences from NS or LS. However, they did not show any differences from MS. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the present study, the use of tobacco involves a 15.8% risk of implant failure, with a 13.1 odds ratio. LS or MS tobacco use involves a 10.1% relative risk of implant loss, whereas the consumption of >20 cigarettes per day increases this risk to 30.8%.     

Dental patient awareness of smoking effects on oral health: Comparison of smokers and non-smokers

OBJECTIVES: The negative effects of cigarette smoking on oral health are well established, yet few studies assessed patient awareness of such effects. The aim of this study was to examine differences in dental patient knowledge and awareness of the effects of smoking on oral health between smokers and non-smokers. METHODS: Adult patients from 12 dental centers in Kuwait were asked to complete a 14-point self-administered structured questionnaire on the effects of smoking on oral health in this cross-sectional survey. Significant associations between oral health knowledge, smoking status, and sociodemographic variables were examined with univariate analysis and logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1012 subjects participated (response rate = 84.3%). The prevalence of smoking was 29.3%. Fewer smokers than non-smokers thought that oral health and smoking are related (92.2% vs. 95.8%; P = 0.020), and that smoking affected oral cancer (52.4% vs. 66.8%; P < 0.001), periodontal health (72% vs. 78%; P = 0.040), or tooth staining (86.1% vs. 90.9%; P = 0.018). Logistic regression analysis showed smokers to be significantly less aware of the oral health effects of smoking than non-smoking patients (OR=1.51; 95% CI: 1.05-2.16; P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Smoking dental patients are significantly less aware of the oral health effects of smoking than non-smokers. Comparative studies in other populations may be warranted to ascertain the validity of these results.     

Immediate Placement of Dental Implants in the Esthetic Zone: A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

Background: Research interest on immediate placement of dental implants has shifted from implant survival toward optimal preservation of soft and hard tissues. The aim of this study is to systematically assess the condition of implant survival, peri‐implant hard and soft tissue changes, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction of immediately placed single‐tooth implants in the esthetic zone. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for publications up to June 2013. Studies reporting on implant survival, changes in hard and soft peri‐implant tissues, esthetic outcome, and patient satisfaction were considered. A pooled analysis was performed to identify factors associated with survival and peri‐implant tissue changes after immediate implant placement. Results: Thirty‐four studies were considered eligible. Immediate placement of single‐tooth implants in the esthetic zone was accompanied by excellent 1‐year implant survival (97.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.958 to 0.980). Mean marginal peri‐implant bone loss was 0.81 ± 0.48 mm, mean loss of interproximal peri‐implant mucosa level was 0.38 ± 0.23 mm, and mean loss of peri‐implant midfacial mucosa level was 0.54 ± 0.39 mm. Regression analysis revealed that delayed provisionalization (odds ratio [OR] 58.03, 95% CI: 8.05 to 418.41, P <0.000), use of a flap (OR 19.87, 95% CI: 10.21 to 38.66, P <0.000), and use of a connective tissue graft (OR 4.56, 95% CI: 1.72 to 12.08, P <0.002) were associated with marginal peri‐implant bone‐level change >0.50 mm. Because of underreporting, esthetic results and patient outcome did not allow for reliable analysis. Conclusion: Immediate placement with immediate provisionalization of dental implants in the esthetic zone results in excellent short‐term treatment outcome in terms of implant survival and minimal change of peri‐implant soft and hard tissue dimensions.     

Effects of smoking on the outcome of implant treatment: a literature review.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The use of osseointegrated implants as a foundation for the prosthetic replacement of missing teeth has become widespread in the last decade. Owing to the remarkable success of dental implants, there has been growing interest in identifying the factors associated with implant failure. Given the well-documented deleterious effect of smoking on wound healing after tooth extraction and its association with poor quality bone and periodontal disease, a negative effect of tobacco use on implant success is to be expected. PURPOSE: To establish the relationship between smoking and implant-related surgical procedures (i.e, sinus lift procedures, bone grafts and dental implants), including the incidence of complications related to these procedures and the long-term survival and success rates of dental implants among smokers and nonsmokers based on relevant literature.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Relevant clinical studies published in English between 1990 and 2006 were reviewed. The articles were located through Medline and, manually, through the references of peer-reviewed literature. This was supplemented with a hand search of selected dental journals and text books.RESULTS: The majority of the past and current literature implicates smoking as one of the prominent risk factors affecting the success rate of dental implants with only a handful of studies failing to establish a connection. Most of the studies report the failure rate of implants in smokers as being more than twice that in nonsmokers. These findings are difficult to ignore. There is a statistically significant difference between smokers and nonsmokers in the failure rates of dental implants. Smoking also has a strong influence on the complication rates of implants: it causes significantly more marginal bone loss after implant placement, it increases the incidence of peri-implantitis and affects the success rates of bone grafts. The failure rate of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses of smokers is again more than twice that seen in nonsmokers.Conclusion: Smokers have higher failure rates and complications following dental implantation and implant-related surgical procedures. The failure rate of implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses of smokers is more than twice that seen in nonsmokers.     

Private practice results of screw-type tapered implants: survival and evaluation of risk factors

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to examine the long-term survival and the prosthetic treatment outcome of screw-type, tapered implants placed in a private practice setting and to explore potential risk factors of implant failures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of patients treated with endosseous screw-type tapered implants, data relative to implant placement and failure, implant length, location, prosthetic treatment, medical history, smoking habits, and oral health behavior were gathered by chart review and questionnaire. An oral examination was also conducted. Cumulative survival rates were estimated through Kaplan-Meier methods. Comparisons between subgroups of patients were made using the log-rank statistical test. The association between several factors and implant failures was analyzed using Cox regression analyses (random and dependent models). Differences were considered significant when P < .05. RESULTS: The survival rate of 663 implants placed in 159 patients (65 men, 94 women; 80.7% of 197 eligible patients) was 91.8% after 120 months. Mandibular implants had a higher survival rate than maxillary implants (96% versus 89%, P = .011). The failure rates for implants were 15.0% among current smokers, 9.6% among former smokers, and 3.6% among nonsmokers. The differences between nonsmokers, former smokers, and current smokers were significant (nonsmokers versus former smokers: P = .036, nonsmokers versus current smokers: P < .001, former smokers versus current smokers: P = .003). Only number of years of smoking was significantly associated with an increased risk of implant failures (P = .036 using dependent estimation; P = .004 using independent estimation). The HR increased to 6.6 for patients who had smoked for 45 years. Loosening of prosthetic components were rare (n=12). No fractures of screws or implants were found. DISCUSSION: Higher failure rates for former smokers and a dose-response effect between duration of smoking and implant failure rates suggested that permanent tissue damage from smoking may occur in addition to immediate local and systemic effects. The frequency of prosthetic complications was comparable to other studies. CONCLUSIONS: Screw-type tapered implants placed in a private dental office demonstrated a cumulative survival rate of 91.8%. The relative risk of implant failure increased with the duration of smoking.     

Implant loss and crestal bone loss in immediate versus delayed load in edentulous mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Statement of problemThe current trend is to shorten the loading times of dental implants. However, information about the risk of early loss of implants that have been loaded immediately is scant if compared with data available for those conventionally loaded.PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to study immediate (IL) and delayed loading (DL) protocols in edentulous mandibles to determine whether differences exist in implant success and crestal bone loss and to evaluate these possible differences in relation to the type of prosthesis and the splinting of the implants.Material and methodsThe literature review was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Nine randomized clinical trials were included.ResultsThe result of a meta-analysis of implant loss before 1 year was 2.63 (95% CI: 1.22, 5.68), favoring the DL control group, while the outcome for crestal bone loss at the observation year was 0.42 (95% CI: -0.35, 1.20), with a tendency toward reduced bone loss for DL.ConclusionsThe risk of early loss in the IL group was higher than that in the DL group. For removable prostheses and nonsplinted implants, DL was preferred. The quality of scientific evidence significantly favors DL.     

Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

There is currently no consensus regarding the survival rate of osseointegrated implants in patients with osteoporosis. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the survival rate of implants in such patients. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO databases were used to identify articles published up to September 2016. The systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA/PICO requirements and the risk of bias was assessed (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council scale). The relative risk (RR) of implant failure and mean marginal bone loss were analyzed within a 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifteen studies involving 8859 patients and 29,798 implants were included. The main outcome of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference in implant survival rate between patients with and without osteoporosis, either at the implant level (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93–2.08; P = 0.11) or at the patient level (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50–1.89; P = 0.94). However, the meta-analysis for the secondary outcome revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between patients with and without osteoporosis (0.18 mm, 95% CI 0.05–0.30, P = 0.005). Data heterogeneity was low. An increase in peri-implant bone loss was observed in the osteoporosis group. Randomized and controlled clinical studies should be conducted to analyze possible biases.     

Clinical outcomes of implants following lateral bone augmentation: systematic assessment of available options (barrier membranes, bone grafts, split osteotomy)

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes related to implants following lateral augmentation procedures (GBR, bone grafts, split osteotomy) with implants placed in pristine sites.
Material and Methods: A systematic review of all prospective studies of implants placed simultaneously or as a second surgery following lateral augmentation compared with implants placed in pristine bone with 6 months of loading was performed.
Results: From 435 potentially relevant publications, 125 full-text publications were screened and four were identified as fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Three studies compared implants placed with simultaneous GBR or with a bone substitute and one with autogenous bone graft as a staged procedure. The implant survival at the augmented sites irrespective of the procedure used varied from 91.7% to 100% and from 93.2% to 100% at the control sites for a period between 12 and 59.1 months.
Conclusions: Within the limits of the systematic review there was evidence that the evaluated augmentation techniques result in similar implant survival between augmented and pristine sites. The small number of retrieved studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria limited the conclusions regarding the success of the augmentation and its effect on the survival of the implants. Properly designed randomized controlled clinical trials on this topic are needed.     

Clinical viability of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this meta-analysis was to verify the clinical viability of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO). An electronic search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed (end date July 2017); this was supplemented by a manual search of the literature. Only prospective clinical trials and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated SIMO with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel–Haenszel method. Dental implant and prosthetic failure were the dichotomous outcome measures; these were evaluated through the risk ratio (RR) and odds ratio (OR), with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Of 499 articles identified, nine fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 205 implants were placed in patients with a mean age of 64.1 years; the cumulative survival rate was 96.6% over a mean follow-up period of 37.3 months. The procedure used (SIMO vs. two implant-retained mandibular overdenture) did not affect dental implant failure (P = 0.45) or prosthetic failure (P = 0.65): RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.91–1.23) and RR 0.88 (95% CI 0.51–1.51), respectively; OR 2.56 (95% CI 0.27–24.39; P = 0.41) and OR 0.44 (95% CI 0.15–1.26; P = 0.13), respectively. Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, SIMO with a complete denture as the opposing arch may be considered an alternative treatment for completely edentulous patients. However, this study also confirmed the need for more RCTs on this topic.     

Tooth preservation or implant placement: A systematic review of long-term tooth and implant survival rates

BackgroundFor the past few decades, dental implants have served as reliable replacements for missing teeth. However, there is an increasing trend toward replacing diseased teeth with dental implants.Types of Studies ReviewedThe authors conducted a systematic review of long-term survival rates of teeth and implants. They searched the MEDLINE database for relevant publications up to March 2013. They considered studies in which investigators assessed the long-term effectiveness of dental implants or that of tooth preservation. They included only studies that had follow-up periods of 15 years or longer.ResultsThe authors selected 19 articles for inclusion. Investigators in nine studies assessed the tooth survival rate, whereas investigators in 10 studies assessed the implant survival rate. When comparing the overall long-term (that is, 15 years or more) tooth loss rate with that of implants, the authors observed rates ranging between 3.6 and 13.4 percent and 0 and 33 percent for teeth and implants, respectively. They could not perform a meta-analysis because of the substantial differences between the studies.Practical ImplicationsThe results of this systematic review show that implant survival rates do not exceed those of compromised but adequately treated and maintained teeth, supporting the notion that the decision to extract a tooth and place a dental implant should be made cautiously. Even when a tooth seems to be compromised and requires treatment to be maintained, implant treatment also might require additional surgical procedures that might pose some risks as well. Furthermore, a tooth can be extracted and replaced at any time; however, extraction is a definitive and irreversible treatment.