6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Long-Term Effect of Smoking on 10 Years’ Survival and Success of Dental Implants: A Prospective Analysis of 453 Implants in a Non-University Setting

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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 should be advised and maintained after implant placement from the perspective of peri-implant disease prevention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references76

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Advancing dental implant surface technology--from micron- to nanotopography.

            Current trends in clinical dental implant therapy include use of endosseous dental implant surfaces embellished with nanoscale topographies. The goal of this review is to consider the role of nanoscale topographic modification of titanium substrates for the purpose of improving osseointegration. Nanotechnology offers engineers and biologists new ways of interacting with relevant biological processes. Moreover, nanotechnology has provided means of understanding and achieving cell specific functions. The various techniques that can impart nanoscale topographic features to titanium endosseous implants are described. Existing data supporting the role of nanotopography suggest that critical steps in osseointegration can be modulated by nanoscale modification of the implant surface. Important distinctions between nanoscale and micron-scale modification of the implant surface are presently considered. The advantages and disadvantages of nanoscale modification of the dental implant surface are discussed. Finally, available data concerning the current dental implant surfaces that utilize nanotopography in clinical dentistry are described. Nanoscale modification of titanium endosseous implant surfaces can alter cellular and tissue responses that may benefit osseointegration and dental implant therapy.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years.

              The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5- and 10-year survival of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Clin Med
                J Clin Med
                jcm
                Journal of Clinical Medicine
                MDPI
                2077-0383
                08 April 2020
                April 2020
                : 9
                : 4
                : 1056
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Dental Medicine, Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; stijn.vervaeke@ 123456ugent.be (S.V.); hugo.debruyn@ 123456ugent.be (H.D.B.)
                [2 ]Private Practice Periodontology and Oral Implantology, 8940 Geluwe, Belgium
                [3 ]Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; Stefanie.DeBuyser@ 123456ugent.be
                [4 ]Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Dentistry—Implantology & Periodontology, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [5 ]Center for Periodontology and Implantology Leuven, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium; collaert@ 123456paro-implanto.be
                Author notes
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9343-4216
                Article
                jcm-09-01056
                10.3390/jcm9041056
                7230390
                32276371
                98a76029-c062-4b4f-bb99-854de04ab0a4
                © 2020 by the authors.

                Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                : 20 March 2020
                : 06 April 2020
                Categories
                Article

                smoking,dental implants,crestal bone loss,marginal bone loss,long-term survival

                Comments

                Comment on this article