Page 29 - SPEMD_58-4

rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac . 2017;58(4):212-218 217

Many studies have provided information about risk fac- and psychological well-being, as shown when objective me-
tors for implant survival, but the information has been he- thods for evaluating satisfaction and quality of life are
28 28
terogeneous, and the evidence for absolute contraindica- applied (such as the OHIP-14). In 2013, Kuoppala et al. used
tions to implant placement remains scarce. 1-4 Currently, it the OHIP-14 to assess 58 patients who had undergone reha-
seems that some of the diseases and clinical circumstances bilitation by means of implants, finding significant improve-
previously regarded as contraindications to implant inser- ment in their quality of life after treatment. Reductions in
tion are no longer so, thanks to scientific evidence of suc- saliva flow can compromise quality of life and patient satis-
cessful treatment outcomes in cases published during the faction with treatment outcomes. However, the present study
past ten years. 1,6,24 In this sense, a wider knowledge of the did not find statistically significant differences in quality of
underlying disease has improved the management of im- life between the study and control groups.
plantology patients with bone metabolism disorders, dia- The present findings agree with other studies, 26,27 sugges-
betes mellitus, SS, xerostomia, among others. 5,6 Never- ting that SS does not compromise osseointegration biology
theless, it is clear that systemic diseases can affect oral despite a considerable number of dentists and rheumatolo-
tissues, increase susceptibility to other diseases, or inter- gists having expressed initial concerns over the potential
fere with the healing of surgical wounds. Implant survival dangers to osseointegration. The present study had some li-
rates in healthy individuals are high: 93-97%. 1-4 Of the 198 mitations: the number of patients with implants, which was
implants assessed in the present study, the patients in the small, and the study design.
study group reported having lost four while a single patient
in the control group lost two during the first months
following surgery. Conclusion
Peri-implant mucositis is fairly common – occurs in arou-
nd 10% of cases – and constitutes a considerable clinical To sum up, based on the research available, implant survival
challenge. The present study investigated whether xerosto- rates among SS patients would appear to be comparable to
mia patients might present more peri-implant mucositis, or those of patients free from systemic diseases. Dental im-
bleeding on probing, than a healthy population of similar age plants are a favorable treatment option for patients with xe-
and the results were similar. rostomia.
Studies of dental implants in SS patients are scarce and
very limited in terms of follow-up duration. Some are indivi-
17
dual case reports. 15,16 Binon et al. described a case with Ethical disclosures
mandibular osseointegrated implants that remained stable
after a 13-year follow-up. Isidor et al. 18 obtained an 84% suc- Protection of human and animal subjects. The authors
cess rate among 54 implants placed in eight patients. Payne declare that no experiments were performed on humans or
et al 19 described a case series of 26 implants placed in three animals for this study.
patients, obtaining a success rate of 88.4% during a follow-up
of only two years. It is very important to understand that oral Confidentiality of data. The authors declare that they have
treatment does not end when surgical procedures are com- followed the protocols of their work center on the publication
pleted: ongoing monitoring of patients can be crucial. Korfa- of patient data.
ge et al. examined 50 patients with SS and found a 14%
26
prevalence of peri-implantitis (11% of the implants placed), Right to privacy and informed consent. The authors have
which is a rate similar to that of healthy subjects. Over the obtained the written informed consent of the patients or sub-
46-month follow-up, the implant survival rate was 97%, as, jects mentioned in the article. The corresponding author is in
of the 142 implants placed, four from two patients were lost. possession of this document.
Those authors also reported that, in those patients, oral func-
tioning correlated negatively with xerostomia and mastica-
tion capacity so that SS did not constitute a barrier to os- Conflict of interest
seointegration or implant survival.
These results also agree with a research conducted by The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Albertcht et al. with 32 SS patients and a mean number of
27
implants per patient of 3.1 ± 2.00. A total of five out of 104
(4.8%) implants had to be eliminated over a period of 4.9
years. Notably, 75% of the patients were very satisfied with references
their implants. Although that study had the largest sample
size studied to date, it depended on patient reports instead 1. Beikler T, Flemmig TF. Implants in the medically
of dental exploration carried out by a professional. compromised patient. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003;14:305-16.
After any implant-based treatment, it is essential to as- 2. Bornstein MM, Cionca N, Mombelli A. Systemic conditions
sess patient satisfaction with the treatment outcome, to en- and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(Suppl):12-27.
sure that general satisfaction, comfort, stability, speech and 3. Albrektsson TN, Donos G. Working. Implant survival and
mastication capacity are adequate. Improvements in these complications. The third EAO consensus conference 2012.
areas have brought benefits in terms of the patients’ social Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):63-5.