Four years survival and marginal bone loss of implants in patients with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) after 4 years in patients with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy, compared with a healthy control group. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The case group comprises 102 implants in 19 patients (71 cerebral palsy, 21 Down syndrome), and the control group comprises 70 implants in 22 healthy patients. One implant per patient was selected (n = 41 implants) to take clustering effects into account. MBL was measured using two panoramic radiographs (after surgery and 4 years later). Lagervall-Jansson's Index was used. Statistics used are chi-squared test and Haberman's post hoc test. p Value is significant at <0.05. RESULTS: MBL was significantly higher in the cases in all samples (p < 0.001) and when one implant was selected per patient (p < 0.05). More implants were lost in the cases (p < 0.01), especially those with a higher MBL (p < 0.01). MBL (p < 0.05) and implant loss (p < 0.01) increased with age in the cases. The three-unit fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) showed higher MBL (p < 0.05). Down syndrome had a higher MBL than cerebral palsy (entire sample p < 0.0001, one implant per patient p < 0.05). All patients with Down syndrome saw some damage to bone support (entire sample p < 0.0001; one implant per patient p < 0.05). Implant loss occurred only in Down syndrome (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: MBL and implant loss 4 years after placement are higher in neuropsychiatric disabilities. Down syndrome has a higher risk of MBL and implant loss; therefore, special precautions should be taken when deciding on treatment for these patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As a consequence of this pilot study, professionals should be very cautious in placing implants in patients with Down syndrome.

Survival of dental implants in patients with Down syndrome: A case series.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The need for tooth replacement in individuals with Down syndrome (DS) is explained by the high prevalence of dental agenesis and by the premature loss of teeth through severe periodontal disease. Dental implants may be the dental procedure of choice in some of these patients. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to analyze dental implant survival in a series of patients with DS. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational study. Information on patients was gathered using a standardized questionnaire designed specifically for this study, including personal details, oral health status, information on the surgical and prosthetic phases, and follow-up visits. The questionnaire was sent to centers registered with the research network of the Spanish Society of Special Needs Dentistry (SEOENE). Patients with DS aged 18 years or older were included in the study if they had at least 1 dental implant and the corresponding prosthesis and had been followed up for at least a year. RESULTS: The study population was formed of 25 adult patients (13 men and 12 women) aged between 19 and 60 years. The interventions were performed by 5 different dental surgeons, usually under general anesthesia or deep sedation (n=17 patients). A total of 73 implants were inserted, 30 in the maxilla and 43 in the mandible, most commonly in the anterior region (n=51). The mean time to loading the implants was 4.1 ±1.3 months after surgery (range, 1 to 7 months). All patients completed prosthetic rehabilitation; the most frequent design used was the single fixed prosthesis (n=13 patients). A total of 17 (23.2%) implants failed in 8 (32%) patients; the majority (n=14 implants) failed in the postsurgical period before implant loading. The distribution by patients was 1 implant failure in 6 patients, 3 failures in 1 patient, and 8 failures in 1 patient. CONCLUSIONS: Dental implant survival is lower in individuals with DS than in the general population. The reasons for early implant failure in these patients have still not been clearly identified.

Implants in disabled patients: a review and update.

The range of indications for dental implants has broadened enormously owing to their predictability and the improvement of patient satisfaction in terms of stability, comfort, aesthetics and functionality. The aim of this article is to review those indications in patients with mental or physical disabilities as the difficulty to cope with oral hygiene often leads to teeth extraction, adding edentulousness to the impairments already present. Following that goal, available literature in Pubmed database, Scopus, Web of Knowledge and The Cochrane Library database about dental implants placement in these patients has been reviewed, assessing the variables of each study: number of patients, sex, average age, oral hygiene, parafunctional habits, impairment, bone quality, protocol of implant surgery, necessity of deep intravenous sedation or general anesthesia, follow-up period and number of failures. The comparison with studies involving other patient populations without mental or physical impediments did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the failure rate recorded. Although there is not much literature available, the results of this review seem to suggest that osseointegrated oral implants could be a therapeutic option in patients who suffer from any physical or psychological impairment. The success of an oral rehabilitation depends mainly on an adequate selection of the patients.