Effect of Cigarette Smoking On Pain Intensity of TMD Patients: A Pilot Study

Abstract

To evaluate the effect of cigarette smoking (CS) on pain intensity in a sample of temporomandibular disorder (TMD) patients, 352 clinical charts were reviewed. Subjects were first divided into two groups: smokers (YS) and nonsmokers (NS); then, YS were further divided into three subgroups: light smokers (LS), moderate smokers (MS), and heavy smokers (HS). Overall TMD pain intensity was higher in YS, compared to NS, and a correlation was found between pain intensity and the number of cigarettes smoked in a day by each subject. A significant difference was evident between NS and HS. The results were not evident in males; age was not correlated either with smoking or pain intensity, and the effect of CS on pain intensity was not correlated with any particular TMD diagnosis. CS seems to be a relevant factor affecting the intensity of TMD pain, thus, control of smoking habits should be considered when treating TMD patients.     

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.     

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.     

Tobacco‐product usage as a risk factor for dental implants

The oral cavities of tobacco smokers and users of smokeless tobacco products are exposed to high concentrations of nicotine. A limited number of animal studies have assessed the effect of nicotine on osseointegration. Results from experimental studies have reported a statistically significant decrease, at 4 weeks of follow‐up, in bone‐to‐implant contact among rats exposed to nicotine compared with unexposed rats. Nicotine increases the production of inflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin‐6 and tumor necrosis factor‐alpha) by osteoblasts. Waterpipe, pipe, and cigarette smokers are at increased risk of developing oral cancer, periodontal disease, and alveolar bone loss. One explanation for this is that smokers (regardless of the type of tobacco product) are exposed to similar chemicals, such as nicotine, tar, oxidants, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and carbon monoxide. Moreover, raised levels of proinflammatory cytokines have been identified in the gingival crevicular fluid of cigarette smokers with peri‐implant diseases. Therefore, it is hypothesized that nicotine and chemicals in tobacco smoke induce a state of oxidative stress in peri‐implant tissues (gingiva and alveolar bone), thereby increasing the likelihood of peri‐implant disease development via an inflammatory response, which if left uncontrolled, will result in implant failure/loss. In this regard, tobacco smoking (including cigarettes, waterpipe, and pipe) is a significant risk factor for peri‐implant diseases. The impact of vaping electronic cigarettes using nicotine‐containing e‐juices remains unknown. Habitual use of smokeless tobacco products is associated with oral inflammatory conditions, such as oral precancer, cancer, and periodontal disease. However, the effect of habitual use of smokeless tobacco products on the success and survival of dental implants remains undocumented.     

Smoking interferes with the prognosis of dental implant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM: This systematic literature review was performed to investigate if smoking interferes with the prognosis of implants with and without accompanying augmentation procedures compared with non-smokers. METHODS: A systematic electronic and handsearch (articles published between 1989 and 2005; English and German language; search terms "dental or oral implants and smoking"; "dental or oral implants and tobacco") was performed to identify publications providing numbers of failed implants, related to the numbers of smokers and non-smokers for meta-analysis. Publications providing statistically examined data of implant failures or biologic complications among smokers compared with non-smokers were included for systematic review. RESULTS: Of 139 publications identified, 29 were considered for meta-analysis and 35 for systematic review. Meta-analysis revealed a significantly enhanced risk for implant failure among smokers [implant-related odds ratio (OR) 2.25, confidence interval (CI(95%)) 1.96-2.59; patient-related OR 2.64; CI(95%) 1.70-4.09] compared with non-smokers, and for smokers receiving implants with accompanying augmentation procedures (OR 3.61; CI(95%) 2.26-5.77, implant related). The systematic review indicated significantly enhanced risks of biologic complications among smokers. Five studies revealed no significant impact of smoking on prognosis of implants with particle-blasted, acid-etched or anodic oxidized surfaces. CONCLUSION: Smoking is a significant risk factor for dental implant therapy and augmentation procedures accompanying implantations.     

Smoking as a risk indicator for periodontal disease in the middle-aged Vietnamese population

BACKGROUND: Studies from developed countries have found smoking a significant risk indicator for periodontitis. However, few such studies have been conducted in developing populations, where the natural history of the disease is rarely confounded by treatment and smoking is highly prevalent. AIM: The present study aimed to confirm the consistency, strength and dose-response of the association of smoking with periodontitis measured by loss of attachment (LOA) in a representative middle-aged adult sample from a developing country. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with a multistage stratified random sample was conducted in two provinces of Vietnam. RESULTS: A total of 575 (response: 84.6%) 35-44-year-old subjects were interviewed and periodontally examined. Data were re-weighted to represent the population of the provinces. 28.9% were current smokers (CS), 8.6% former smokers (FS) and 62.5% never-smokers (NS). Number of cigarette pack-years was calculated to divide CS into light smokers, LS < or = 5 pack-years, and heavy smokers, HS 5+ pack-years. The US NIDR protocol was employed for LOA measurement at two sites per tooth for every tooth. HS presented with the highest prevalence of LOA exceeding various thresholds followed by LS (chi2, P < 0.001). The extent of sites with LOA > or = 4 mm and LOA > or = 6 mm was significantly higher among HS and LS compared to NS (ANOVA; P < 0.001). The severity scores of LOA for NS, FS, LS and HS were 2.42, 2.50, 2.64 and 3.05 mm respectively (ANOVA; P < 0.001). Disease cases were defined as having 2+ sites with LOA > or = 5 mm and 1+ site with PD > or = 4 mm. Compared to NS, the odds ratio for periodontitis among heavy smokers was 7.17 (CI: 2.87-17.92, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Smoking is a risk indicator for periodontitis among the middle-aged Vietnamese population. To pursue a population prevention approach for periodontitis, dentistry in Vietnam needs to be part of antismoking and smoking cessation programs.     

Long-term evaluation of hollow screw and hollow cylinder dental implants: clinical and radiographic results after 10 years

BACKGROUND: In 1988, an implant manufacturer offered a new dental implant system, with a wide choice of hollow cylinder (HC) and hollow screw (HS) implants. The purpose of this retrospective study of HS and HC implants was to evaluate clinical and radiographic parameters of peri-implant tissue and to analyze surgical and prosthetic aftercare. METHODS: A total of 89 HS and 26 HC implants in 38 edentulous patients were available for complete evaluation. The patients were treated with overdentures stabilized by two or four implants. The follow-up period was 10 years. RESULTS: The results of the clinical evaluation showed a mean sulcus probing depth of 3.3+/-1.3 mm (range=2 to 10 mm). The mean radiographic bone loss was 2.2+/-2.1 mm (range=0.1 to 12.2 mm). One implant (HS) was removed during the osseointegration period. Three other implants (two HS and one HC) in three patients had to be removed after 10 years. The survival rate of the HS implant (96.6%) was comparable to the HC implant (96.1%). The success rate of the HS implant (93.3%) was slightly more favorable compared to the HC implant (88.5%). The HS and HC implants met the Albrektsson criteria of success. CONCLUSIONS: HS and HC implants provide a stable base for long-term support of a mandibular overdenture. Furthermore, it is important to monitor peri-implant bone level by taking annual radiographs and measuring probing depth, especially after prolonged service.     

Immediate implant placement in molar regions: risk factors for early failure

Objectives: To identify risk factors for early failure of immediately placed implants in molar regions associated with three bone regenerative techniques. Methods: Ninety‐two patients (44 women and 48 men; mean age 50 years, 35 smokers and 57 non‐smokers) in need of a single implant crown to replace a molar were included. After placing the implant, patients were randomized to one of three treatment groups for bone reconstruction of remaining periimplant defects: Autologous bone (AB) chips, Ossix membrane (OM) or a combination of AB chips and OM. The implant was submerged, and after 4 months of healing a re‐entry surgery was made to connect a healing abutment. Implants with a dehiscence on ≥2 sites (mesial/distal/oral/buccal) together with≥50% visible threads, were judged as failures. A series of simple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for failure among the following independent variables: sex, jaw, smoking status, plaque, bleeding on probing, fistula, extraction reason, mean initial periimplant defect size, treatment group, implant length, buccal bone dehiscence (BBD), soft‐tissue dehiscence and infection. The identified risk factors entered a multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: Fifteen implants failed before abutment operation (13 explantations/two non‐osseointegrated). Treatment group had no impact on failure. Risk factors for failure were: Smoking >10 cigarettes/day (odds ratio [OR]=9.29, confidence interval [CI]=1.21–71.16), BBD (OR=11.43, CI=1.34–97.74) and infection (OR=36.7, CI=2.75–489.31). Conclusions: Implants placed immediately after extraction of a molar were associated with a high risk for failure at abutment operation. There was no difference in failure rate between three bone reconstructive techniques. To cite this article:
Urban T, Kostopoulos L, Wenzel A. Immediate implant placement in molar regions: risk factors for early failure.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 23 , 2012; 220–227.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2011.02167.x     

The effect of smoking on osseointegrated dental implants. Part I: implant survival

PURPOSE: Recent studies implicate smoking as a significant factor in the failure of dental implants. The purpose of this long-term retrospective study was to evaluate the survival of Br?nemark endosseous dental implants in relation to cigarette smoking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 464 consecutively treated completely and partially edentulous patients who had a total of 1852 implants placed between 1979 and 1999, and who were part of a surgical/prosthodontic prospective treatment outcomes study. The effect of cigarette smoking on implant survival in relation to the time of implant failure, gender, age, surgeon, date and site of implant placement, implant length and diameter, prosthesis design, and occlusal loading considerations was assessed in bivariate and multivariate survival analyses. RESULTS: The overall implant failure rate was 7.72%. Patients who were smokers at the time of implant surgery had a significantly higher implant failure rate (23.08%) than nonsmokers (13.33%). Multivariate survival analysis showed early implant failure to be significantly associated with smoking at the time of stage 1 surgery and late implant failure to be significantly associated with a positive smoking history. Short implants and implant placement in the maxilla were additional independent risk factors for implant failure. CONCLUSION: Cigarette smoking should not be an absolute contraindication for implant therapy; however, patients should be informed that they are at a slightly greater risk of implant failure if they smoke during the initial healing phase following implant insertion or if they have a significant smoking history.     

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.     

Maxillary sinus augmentation as a risk factor for implant failure

PURPOSE: The investigators sought to determine whether maxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) was an independent risk factor for implant failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort study design, the investigators enrolled a sample composed of subjects having 1 or more implants placed in the posterior maxilla. The primary predictor variable was MSA status at the time of implant placement (MSA present or absent). MSA consisted of a lateral window (external) or an osteotome (internal) procedure. The outcome variable was implant failure defined as implant removal. Demographic, health status, anatomic, implant-specific, abutment-specific, prosthetic, and perioperative variables were also examined. Overall implant survival was estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Risk factors for implant failure were identified using Cox proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 318 patients and 762 posterior maxillary implants. The mean duration of follow-up was 22.50 +/- 19.06 months. The 5-year survival rates for implants in the ungrafted and grafted posterior maxilla were 88.0% and 87.9%, respectively (P = .08). After adjustment for covariates, MSA status was not an independent risk factor for implant failure (P = .9). Tobacco use (P < .001), implants replacing molars (P < .001), and 1-stage implants (P < .001) were statistically associated with an increased risk for implant failure. DISCUSSION: MSA status was not associated with implant failure risk. This finding may be subject to selection bias, as successful MSA was requisite prior to implant placement. CONCLUSION: MSA status was not associated with an increased risk for implant failure. Of the 3 factors associated with an increased risk for failure, tobacco use and implant staging may be modified by the clinician to enhance outcome.     

Effects of smoking on implant success in grafted maxillary sinuses.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Cigarette smoking has been identified as a significant risk factor for dental implant treatment. PURPOSE: This retrospective study evaluated the effect of smoking and the amount of cigarette consumption on the success rates of the implants placed in grafted maxillary sinuses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients (16 smokers and 44 nonsmokers) were evaluated for the effects of smoking on osseointegrated implants placed in 84 grafted maxillary sinuses that contained a total of 228 endosseous root-form implants. Seventy implants were placed in 26 maxillary sinuses in smokers, whereas 158 implants were placed in 58 sinuses in nonsmokers. The number of implant failures and the amount of cigarette consumption were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 228 implants, 205 (89.9%) remained in function, after a mean follow-up period of 41.6 months (2 to 60 months). There was a significantly higher cumulative implant success rate in nonsmokers (82.7%) than in smokers (65.3%) (P =.027). Overall cumulative implant success rate was 76%. There was no correlation between implant failures and the amount of cigarette consumption (P >.99). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, cigarette smoking appeared to be detrimental to the success of osseointegrated implants in grafted maxillary sinuses regardless of the amount of cigarette consumption.     

Comparison of peri‐implant clinical and radiographic status around short (6 mm in length) dental implants placed in cigarette‐smokers and never‐smokers: Six‐year follow‐up results

Background

It is hypothesized that peri‐implant clinical and radiographic inflammatory parameters (probing depth [PD], bleeding on probing [BOP] and plaque index [PI]; and radiographic (crestal bone loss [CBL]) are worse among cigarette‐smokers (CS) compared with never‐smokers (NS) with short implants.

Purpose

The present 6‐year follow‐up retrospective study compared the peri‐implant clinical and radiographic parameters in CS and NS with short dental implants (6 mm in length).

Materials and methods

Fifty‐six male individuals were included. These individuals divided into 2 groups as follows: (a) Group‐1: 29 self‐reported systemically healthy CS with 48 short‐implants; and (b) Group‐2: 27 self‐reported systemically healthy NS with 43 short implants. Peri‐implant PD, PI, BOP, and CBL were measured. Group comparisons were done using the Kruskal‐Wallis test and sample size was estimated. Level of significance was set at P values < .05.

Results

In groups 1 and 2, the follow‐up durations were 6.2 ± 0.1 years and 6.1 ± 0.3 years, respectively. A cigarette smoking history of 8.9 ± 3.6 pack years was reported by individuals in Group‐1. At follow‐up, scores of peri‐implant PD, BOP, PI, and mesial and distal CBL were comparable around short implants in both groups.

Conclusion

Under strict oral hygiene maintenance protocols, short dental implants can remain functionally stable in CS in a manner similar to NS.     

Implant Survival and Marginal Bone Loss at Turned and Oxidized Implants in Periodontitis‐Susceptible Smokers and Never‐Smokers: A Retrospective,Clinical, Radiographic Case‐Control Study

Background: Little is known about the long‐term outcome of oxidized surface oral implants, especially in periodontitis‐susceptible smokers. The aim of this study is to determine implant survival and marginal bone loss at turned and oxidized implants in smokers and never‐smokers with periodontitis. Methods: Forty smokers and 40 never‐smokers with experience of advanced periodontal disease, treated with implants 5 years previously, are included in this study. Groups were matched for sex, oral hygiene, and implant distribution, and patients were subgrouped by implant surface type (turned or oxidized). Results: The overall implant survival rate was 96.9% in never‐smokers and 89.6% in smokers. Compared with oxidized implants, turned implants failed more frequently in smokers. In smokers, mean (standard error of the mean) marginal bone loss at 5 years was 1.54 (0.21) mm at turned and 1.16 (0.24) mm at oxidized implants. In never‐smokers, significantly greater bone loss was found at oxidized implants, 1.26 (0.15) mm, than at turned implants, 0.84 (0.14) mm. Oxidized implants demonstrated similar bone loss for both groups. Turned implants lost significantly more bone in smokers. Compared with never‐smokers, the smokers’ likelihood ratio for implant failure was 4.68, 6.40 for turned and 0.00 for oxidized implants. Conclusions: The results of the study underscore the need for prevention and cessation of smoking. Turned implants failed more frequently and lost more marginal bone in smokers. In contrast, oxidized implants showed similar failure rates and bone loss in smokers and never‐smokers. Turned implants displayed less bone loss than oxidized implants in never‐smokers. Oxidized surface implants are more suitable for patients susceptible to periodontitis who smoke.     

A 10‐year retrospective analysis of marginal bone‐level changes around implants in periodontally healthy and periodontally compromised tobacco smokers

Aim: To compare the 10‐year marginal bone loss rates around implants supporting single‐unit crowns in tobacco smokers with and without a history of treated periodontitis. Materials and methods: In this retrospective controlled study, 40 tobacco smokers were divided into four groups of 10 patients each. Two groups of periodontally compromised (PC) patients and two groups of periodontally healthy (PH) patients were established. PC patients had been treated for their periodontal conditions before implant placement. All patients were enrolled in a regular, individually tailored maintenance care program. For the rehabilitation of PC and PH patients, two different types of implants were used (Nobel Biocare AB; Straumann^® Dental Implant System). The radiographic bone loss rate was calculated by subtracting the bone levels at the time of crown delivery from the bone levels at the 10‐year follow‐up. Results: The mean age, mean full‐mouth plaque score and full‐mouth bleeding score and implant location were similar for the four groups. Implant survival rates ranged between 70% and 100%, without statistically significant differences between the four groups (P>0.05). Implants placed in PC patients yielded statistically significantly higher marginal bone loss rates compared with those in PH patients (P<0.05), independent of the implant system used. Conclusion: After 10 years, implants placed in tobacco smokers with a history of treated periodontitis and enrolled in a supportive therapy program yielded lower survival rates and higher marginal bone loss rates compared with those of implants placed in PH smokers. These outcomes were independent of the implant system installed or the healing modality applied. To cite this article:
Aglietta M, Iorio Siciliano V, Rasperini G, Cafiero C, Lang NP, Salvi GE. A 10‐year retrospective analysis of marginal bone‐level changes around implants in periodontally healthy and periodontally compromised tobacco smokers
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 22 , 2011; 47–53.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01977.x     

The effect of smoking on survival and bone loss of implants with a fluoride-modified surface: a 2-year retrospective analysis of 1106 implants placed in daily practice

Aim: To compare the survival and peri‐implant bone loss of implants with a fluoride‐modified surface in smokers and nonsmokers. Materials and methods: Patient files of all patients referred for implant treatment from November 2004 to 2007 were scrutinized. All implants were placed by the same experienced surgeon (B. C.). The only inclusion criterion was a follow‐up time of at least 2 years. Implant survival and bone loss were assessed by an external calibrated examiner (S. V.) comparing digital peri‐apical radiographs taken during recall visits with the post‐operative ones. Implant success was determined according to the international success criteria ( Albrektsson et al. 1986 ). Survival of implants installed in smokers and nonsmokers was compared using the log‐rank test. Both nonparametric tests and fixed model analysis were adopted to evaluate bone loss in smokers and nonsmokers. Results: One‐thousand one‐hundred and six implants in 300 patients (186 females; 114 males) with a mean follow‐up of 31 months (SD 7.15; range 24–58) were included. Nineteen implants in 17 patients failed, resulting in an overall survival rate of 98.3% at the implant level and 94.6% at the patient level. After a follow‐up period of 2 years, the cumulative survival rates was 96.7% and 99.1% with the patient and implant as the statistical unit, respectively. Implant survival was significantly higher for nonsmokers compared with smokers (implant level P=0.025; patient level P=0.017). The overall mean bone loss was 0.34 mm (n=1076; SD 0.65; range 0–7.1). Smokers lost significantly more bone compared with nonsmokers in the maxilla (0.74 mm; SD 1.07 vs. 0.33 mm; SD 0.65; P<0.001), but not in the mandible (0.25 mm; SD 0.65 vs. 0.22 mm; SD 0.5; P=0.298). Conclusion: The present study is the first to compare peri‐implant bone loss in smokers and nonsmokers from the time of implant insertion (baseline) to at least 2 years of follow‐up. Implants with a fluoride‐modified surface demonstrated a high survival rate and limited bone loss. However, smokers are at a higher risk of experiencing implant failure and more prone to show peri‐implant bone loss in the maxilla. Whether this bone loss is predicting future biological complications remains to be evaluated.     

Clinical and biologic factors related to oral implant failure: a 2-year follow-up study

The purpose of this study is to evaluate urinary biomarkers of bone formation and resorption as predictive factors for oral implant failure, and to contribute to the knowledge of factors related to oral implant failure. A total of 93 patients between 18 and 85 years old, with an indication of oral implant, were eligible in this 2-year prospective, open, and nonrandomized study. Patients who had bone graft before implantation or presented with prosthetic difficulties (implant-to-crown ratio < 1, and/or unfavorable intermaxillary space) were excluded. All patients received either Frialit-2 (Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), cylinder, or screwed implants or IMZ Twin Plus (Friadent), cylinder implants, with FRIOS (Friadent) titanium coating. Serum osteocalcin, and urinary pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline were measured, together with bone density at implant location. The primary endpoint (implant failure) was the implant removal (radiographic evidence of peri-implant bone loss and/or pockets). Factors related to implant failure were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression models to consider within-patient effects. Of the 93 patients included, 61% were female, and 16% were current smokers. A total of 266 oral implants were placed and analyzed, with a mean number of 3.1 implants by patient. Eleven and 15% of bone locations scored at D1 and D4, respectively, for the Misch bone density scoring. The majority of implants (72%) were placed more than 3 months after tooth extraction, using a Frialit-2 system in 73% of cases. The mean of osteocalcin was 17.3 (+/-9.4) ng/L; those of pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline were 33.2 (+/-15.8) and 10.2 (+/-11.9) mmol per creatinine mmol, respectively. At one-year, 95.5% (95% confidence interval 92.5-97.5) of implants have not been removed. One year later, no further implant failed. In both univariate and multivariate analysis, osteocalcin, pyridinoline, and deoxypyridinoline were not significant predictive factors of oral implant failure. In multilevel logistic regression analysis, only tobacco consumption and single-tooth replacement or removable prosthesis were independent and significant predictive factors of oral implant failure. Serum osteocalcin, and urinary pyridinoline and deoxypyridinoline were not predictive of oral implant failure in this study. These results suggest that oral implants are more likely to fail for posterior single-tooth replacements and removable prostheses rather than for complete edentulous fixed bridgeworks or overdentures. Tobacco smoking has been identified as a major risk factor of oral implant failure.