Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of apical periodontitis (AP) and endodontic treatment in liver transplant candidates and control healthy subjects.Material and Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study.Forty two liver transplant candidates (LTC) (study group) and 42 control subjects.Digital panoramic radiographs where used.Periapical status was scored according to the periapical index (PAI).Results were analysed statistically using the Chi-squared test and logistic regression.Results: Radiographic signs of AP in one or more teeth was found in 79% of patients in the study group and in 50% of control subjects (p = 0.008; OR = 3.7; C. I. 95% = 1.4 -9.5).One or more root-filled teeth (RFT) were found in 19% and 62% of study and control subjects, respectively (p = 0.0001; OR = 0.14; 95% C. I. = 0.05 -0.38).Among LTC patients 14.7% of the teeth had AP, whereas in the control subjects 4.2% of teeth were affected (p= 0.0002).The percentage of RFT in the study and control groups was 1.5% and 6.8%, respectively (p = 0.0002).Conclusions: Liver transplant candidates have significantly higher prevalence of radiographic periapical lesions and lower frequency of RFT than controls healthy subjects.
To evaluate prospectively the behavior of narrow-diameter (3.3-mm) titanium-zirconium alloy implants with a hydrophilic surface (Straumann Roxolid SLActive) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in single-unit restorations, compared with a healthy control group (assessed using the glycosylated hemoglobin HbA1c test).The patients evaluated in this study required single-unit implant treatment; 15 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 14 patients were healthy (control group [CG]). Marginal bone level (MBL) change around the implants was evaluated using conventional, sequential periapical digital radiographs. Patient HbA1c was assessed in each check-up. Normality test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov), univariate and multivariate logistic regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis.No differences in MBL change and implant survival and success rates were found between the diabetes mellitus group (DMG) versus the control group, either during the initial recording (DMG, 0.99 ± 0.56 vs CG, 0.68 ± 0.54; P > .05) or 6 months after restoration (DMG, 1.28 ± 0.38 vs CG, 1.11 ± 0.59; P > .05). No significant correlation between HbA1c levels and MBL change was detected in these patients (P > .05).Patients with glycemic control exhibit similar outcomes to healthy individuals with regard to the investigated parameters. In light of these findings, the titanium-zirconium alloy small-diameter implants can be used in the anterior region of the mouth in type 2 diabetic patients.
The possible connection between chronic oral inflammatory processes, such as apical periodontitis and periodontal disease (PD), and systemic health is one of the most interesting aspects faced by the medical and dental scientific community. Chronic apical periodontitis shares important characteristics with PD: 1) both are chronic infections of the oral cavity, 2) the Gram-negative anaerobic microbiota found in both diseases is comparable, and 3) in both infectious processes increased local levels of inflammatory mediators may have an impact on systemic levels. One of the systemic disorders linked to PD is diabetes mellitus (DM); is therefore plausible to assume that chronic apical periodontitis and endodontic treatment are also associated with DM. The status of knowledge regarding the relationship between DM and endodontics is reviewed. Upon review, we conclude that there are data in the literature that associate DM with a higher prevalence of periapical lesions, greater size of the osteolityc lesions, greater likelihood of asymptomatic infections and worse prognosis for root filled teeth. The results of some studies suggest that periapical disease may contribute to diabetic metabolic dyscontrol.
The aim of this prospective descriptive study was to analyse the possible variables associated with marginal bone loss in rehabilitated implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain) two years after their prosthetic loading.Three clinical centres collaborated for a period of two years after the prosthetic rehabilitation of the implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain), in which marginal bone loss and the possible associated variables were evaluated. The collection form comprised different variables throughout different stages of the implant procedure, from implant insertion to the subsequent prosthetic rehabilitation, over a two-year period. Data of the patients and implant characteristics were studied. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS for qualitative (univariate logistic regressions, Chi2 test, and Haberman's corrected standardised residuals) and quantitative variables (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test).The total study sample consisted of 218 implants (Proclinic S.A.U, Zaragoza, Spain). The sample presented a frequency of 99 men (45.4%) and 119 women (54.6%). The mean age of the patients among the reported cases was 58.56 ± 10.12 years. A statistically significant association was found between marginal bone loss 2 years after prosthetic rehabilitation placement and several variables, including age (under 55 years, 0.25 mm ± 0.56; 55-64 years, 0.74 mm ± 0.57; over 65 years, 0.63 mm ± 0.55; p < 0.0001), gender (female, 0.74 mm ± 0.61; male, 0.34 mm ± 0.51; p < 0.0001), bone quality (D1, 0.75 mm ± 0.62; D2, 0.43 mm ± 0.57; D3, 0.65 mm ± 0.60; p < 0.01), implant diameter (up to 4 mm, 0.49 mm ± 0.58; more than 4 mm, 1.21 mm ± 0.30; p < 0.0001), prosthetic connection type (direct to implant, 0.11 mm ± 0.58; transepithelial straight, 0.67 mm ± 0.57; transepithelial angled, 0.33 mm ± 0.25; p < 0001), implant model (internal conical, 0.17 mm ± 0.24; external conical, 0.48 mm ± 0.61; external cylindrical, 1.12 mm ± 0.32; p < 0.0001), prosthetic restoration type (full denture, 0.59 mm ± 0.59; partial denture, 0.50 mm ± 0.85; unitary crown, 0.08 mm ± 0.19; p < 0.05), and insertion torque (>35 N/cm, 0.53 mm ± 0.58; <35 N/cm, 1.04 mm ± 0.63; p < 0.01).At 2 years, marginal bone loss following prosthetic rehabilitation was shown to be influenced by multiple factors. Correct implantological planning is of vital importance for successful rehabilitation.
Fitting implants in osteoporotic patients has traditionally been controversial, and there is little scientific evidence relating osteoporosis to marginal bone loss (MBL). The aims of this study are as follows: 1) to evaluate the possibility of a correlation between osteoporosis, as measured by the mandibular cortical index (MCI), and MBL and 2) to assess how various systemic diseases, periodontitis, and placement of implants in regenerated bone are correlated with MBL and MCI.This retrospective study examines 212 implants inserted in 67 patients. To take a possible cluster failure into account, an implant for each patient was selected (n = 67 implants). MBL was assessed. Osteoporosis was evaluated using the MCI. Both MBL and MCI were assessed from panoramic radiographs. χ(2) test was performed (Haberman post hoc test). Significance was P <0.05.When the total sample implant (N = 212) was evaluated, a significant association was found between the presence of osteoporosis and MCI (P <0.001) and between the presence of diabetes mellitus and MCI (P <0.01). Significant associations were also found between MBL and placement of implants in regenerated sites (P <0.001) and between MBL and a previous history of periodontitis (P <0.05). When the sample is evaluated only in selected implants (one per patient, n = 67), significant differences appear to relate only to the MBL with the placement of implants in regenerated bone sites (P <0.001).Osteoporosis (as evaluated by MCI) does not pose a risk for the development of greater MBL. Parameters adversely affecting the development of increased MBL are a previous history of periodontitis and especially the placement of implants at sites of bone regeneration.
Background: The marginal bone of dental implants is subjected to slight load modifications over time, conditioning implant survival.Objective: Perform a systematic review of the literature analyzing the factors that contribute to marginal bone loss (MBL) and the subsequent development of peri-implantitis.Material and Methods: Bibliographic research in the databases PubMed, Medline and Scopus between 2010 and 2018 was performed.The inclusion criteria were articles published in the last 10 years and that were in English or Spanish, that were carried out on humans, that were cohort studies, that included cases and controls or that used randomized clinical trials.Exclusion criteria removed articles that contained clinical cases, case series or systematic reviews.Results: A total of 90 articles were analyzed that examined all the factors reported in the literature, such as idiosyncratic factors, toxic habits, systemic drugs and implant characteristics (diameter, length, type surface, implant connection, implant design and type of platform at the moment of the prosthetic load).Discussion: Patient characteristics and associated pathologies must be taken into account when assessing MBL.MBL in all dental implants can be considered independent of the type of prosthetic rehabilitation and the moment of load; this was emphasized.The MBL is smaller in dental implants with rough surfaces, switch platforms and infracrestal localization, as they are of multifactorial origin.Conclusions: All the reviewed articles maintain a common criterion regarding the concept and measurement of the MBL and highlighting the importance of radiodiagnosis for quantification.Longterm prospective studies with unified criteria are needed to reduce bias by identifying the most relevant factors in MBL.
Case report: A 46-year-old man with severe hemophilia A, stage A2 HIV infection and chronic hepatitis C genotype 1A, for whom the treatment plan included implant-supported prostheses in 2 mandibular edentulous sections. The protocol followed included factor VIII replacement concentrate and oral antifibrinolytic therapy. The right mandibular section was fitted with 3 Straumann implants (Ø 4.1 mm, length 10 mm), and the left mandibular section received 2 implants of the same characteristics. The patient showed no postoperative complications. After implant placement, the patient attended scheduled review appointments. After a 3-month period of osseointegration, the prosthesis was fitted. Conclusions: Although, in this case, the treatment proved successful 2 years postrehabilitation and the protocol used seems safe and effective, long-term prospective studies are needed to evaluate the implant success rate in these patients.
The objectives were to evaluate the bone loss (BL) around narrow diameter implants (3.3 mm) 2 years after implant loading and compare with the bone loss around conventional-diameter implants (4.1 mm), as well as with clinical and anatomical variables. 2-years follow-up.Cases: 20 patients either gender-age, narrow implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 3.3 mm); Control: 20 patients matching for gender-age, conventional implants (Straumann TM-SLA, diameter 4.1). Total 82 implants (31 narrow implants and 51 conventional implants) in 40 patients. To avoid statistical bias, a cluster of one implant per patient was randomly selected (20 narrow implants and 20 conventional implants). To evaluate changes resulting from bone loss around the implants, a total of 80 panoramic radiographs were taken of all 40 patients; the first panoramic image was taken at the time of implant loading and the second one 2 years later. Clinical and demographic variables were obtained from the patients' medical records. Statistical method: Spearman's correlation coefficient, chi-squared (Haberman's post hoc), Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Statistical significance p< 0.05.No significant differences in bone loss around were found around narrow implants versus conventional implants. Differences linked to tobacco use were found after studying one implant per patient (p< 0.05).With the limitations of the present study, no significant differences in BL were found when comparing narrow implants with conventional implants after 2 years of implant loading. There were also no differences found when accounting for other demographic and clinical variables, with the exception of tobacco use. Key words:Lagervall & Jansson's index, bone loss, narrow implants, panoramic radiographs.