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 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 (BC). 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 (SV) 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 were compared using the log-rank test. Both non-parametric tests and fixed model analysis were adopted to evaluate bone loss in smokers and nonsmokers. Results: 1106 implants in 300 patients (186 females; 114 males) with a mean follow-up of 31 months (SD 7.15; range 24-58) were included. 19 implants in 17 patients failed, resulting in an overall survival rate of 98.3% on implant level and 94.6% on patient level. After a follow-up period of 2 years, the CSR was 96.7% and 99.1% with the patient and implant as statistical unit respectively. Implant survival was significantly higher for nonsmokers compared to 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 0.00-7.10). Smokers lost significantly more bone compared to 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 (0.25mm; SD 0.65 vs 0.22mm; SD 0.50; 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 higher risk to experience 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

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

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

The long-term effect of adapting the vertical position of implants on peri-implant health : a 5-year intra-subject comparison in the edentulous mandible including oral health-related quality of life

Despite high success rates of dental implants, surface exposure may occur as a consequence of biologic width establishment associated with surgery. This prospective split-mouth study evaluated the effect of early implant surface exposure caused by initial bone remodeling on long-term peri-implant bone stability and peri-implant health. Additionally, Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) was assessed by means of the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14). Twenty-six patients received two non-splinted implants supporting an overdenture in the mandible by means of locators. One implant was installed equicrestally (control) and the second one was installed subcrestally, taking at least 3 mm soft tissue thickness into account (test). During initial bone remodeling (up to 6 months postoperatively), equicrestal placement yielded 0.68 mm additional surface exposure compared to subcrestal placement (p < 0.001). Afterwards, bone level and peri-implant health were comparable in both treatment conditions and stable up to 5 years. The implant overdenture improved OHRQoL (p < 0.01) and remained unchanged thereafter (p = 0.51). In conclusion, adapting the vertical position of the implant concerning the soft tissue thickness prevents early implant surface exposure caused by initial bone remodeling, but in a well-maintained population, this has no impact on long-term prognosis. The treatment of edentulousness with an implant mandibular overdenture improves OHRQoL

Improvement of quality of life with implant-supported mandibular overdentures and the effect of implant type and surgical procedure on bone and soft tissue stability : a three-year prospective split-mouth trial

In fully edentulous patients, the support of a lower dental prosthesis by two implants could improve the chewing ability, retention, and stability of the prosthesis. Despite high success rates of dental implants, complications, such as peri-implantitis, do occur. The latter is a consequence of crestal bone loss and might be related to the implant surface and peri-implant soft tissue thickness. The aim of this paper is to describe the effect of implant surface roughness and soft tissue thickness on crestal bone remodeling, peri-implant health, and patient-centered outcomes. The mandibular overdenture supported by two implants is used as a split-mouth model to scrutinize these aims. The first study compared implants placed equicrestal to implants placed biologically (i.e., dependent on site-specific soft tissue thickness). The second clinical trial compared implants with a minimally to a moderately rough implant neck. Both studies reported an improvement in oral health-related quality of life and a stable peri-implant health after three years follow-up. Only equicrestal implant placement yielded significantly higher implant surface exposure, due to the establishment of the biologic width. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that an implant supported mandibular overdenture significantly improves the quality of life, with limited biologic complications and high survival rates of the implants