Current status of dental implantation therapy for diabetic patients / 口腔疾病防治

@#In 2017, there were 451 million people (ages 18 to 99) with diabetes worldwide, and this number is expected to grow to 592 million by 2035. A series of complications in diabetic patients often leads to oral vascular and bone lesions. Therefore, dental implant doctors urgently need to understand the clinical characteristics of diabetes mellitus patients to provide the best treatment. For dental implant doctors, the following problems still exist in the treatment of diabetic patients with poor blood sugar control: ① alveolar fossa healing in diabetic patients is slow after extraction, and bone regeneration is often needed, which prolongs the treatment cycle and increases the pain of patients; ② the rate of new bone formation in diabetic patients after alveolar bone grafting is slow; ③ it takes a long time for the body to achieve effective bone bonding after dental implantation in diabetic patients, and the outcomes are poor; ④ the health of the tissue around dental implants is affected by blood sugar level, which is difficult to maintain in diabetic patients. Current studies suggest that the long-term success rate of implants is predictable in diabetic patients when blood sugar levels are well controlled (HbA1c < 6%). This article will review the current research status of dental implantation therapy for diabetic patients to provide a reference for clinical practice.

Avaliação das taxas de sucesso e sobrevivência de 497 implantes há cinco anos ou mais em função – estudo retrospectivo com 139 pacientes / Success and survival rates of 497 implants with at least 5 years of function – a retrospective study with 139 patients

Objetivo: avaliar as taxas de sucesso e sobrevivência de implantes há cinco anos ou mais em função. Material e métodos: pacientes tratados com implantes de titânio (Implacil De Bortoli, São Paulo, Brasil) na Fundecto (USP), no período de 1998 a 2008 foram incluídos neste estudo. Os implantes foram classificados individualmente, de acordo com um rigoroso critério de sucesso. Também foram levados em consideração o formato e o tipo de plataforma dos implantes. Resultados: a taxa de sobrevivência dos implantes tipo hexágono externo (n=357) e interno (n=140) foi de 99,4% e 99,3%, respectivamente. Já com relação aos implantes cônicos (n=88) e cilíndricos (n=409), a taxa de sobrevivência foi de 100% e 99,3%, respectivamente. A taxa de sucesso para implantes tipo hexágono externo e interno foi de 90,8% e 93,6%, respectivamente. Implantes cônicos obtiveram 90,9%, enquanto que implantes cilíndricos apresentaram 91,7% de taxa de sucesso. Conclusão: de acordo com o presente estudo, a taxa geral de sobrevivência dos implantes foi de 99,4%, enquanto a taxa de sucesso foi de 91,5%.

Objective: to assess success and survival rates from implants in function for five or more years. Material and methods: patients treated with osseointegrated implants (Implacil De Bortoli, Sao Paulo, Brazil) at Fundecto (USP), from 1998 to 2008, were included in this study. Implants were individually classified using strict success criteria. For further analysis, data were obtained regarding implant’s platform and implant’s macro design. Results: survival rates for external (n=357) and internal hexagon implants (n=140) were 99,4% and 99,3%, respectively. Regarding tapered (n=88) and cylindrical implants (n=409), survival rates were 100% and 99,3%, respectively. Success rates for external and internal hexagon implants were 90,8% and 93,6%. Tapered implants had 90,9% and cylindrical implants presented 91,7% of success rates. Conclusion: according to this retrospective study, the overall survival rate was 99,4% and the overall success rate was 91,5%.

The success rate of Mg-incorporated oxidized implants in partially edentulous patients: a prospective clinical study / 대한치과보철학회지

PURPOSE: This study examined the clinical success rate of Mg titanate implants (M Implant system, Shinhung, Korea), which employ a Mg coating method, by evaluating the marginal bone loss and implant stability using radiographs and Osstell(R), over a 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The locations of the implants placement were divided into 4 areas; the maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars. In the maxilla, 8 and 9 implants were inserted in the premolar and molar areas, respectively. In the mandible, 11 and 51 implants were inserted in the premolar and molar areas. Marginal bone loss and ISQ of all implants (79) were measured after insertion, mounting the prosthetic appliance, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after loading. The marginal bone loss was measured from the radiograph using XCP bite, which was customized, and the implant stability measured using Osstell(R). Fisher's exact test (alpha=.05) was used to compare the success rates of each region. RESULTS: The mean marginal bone loss for the upper and lower jaws were 1.537 mm and 1.172 mm. The mobility showed a non-significant reduction or increase according with time. The success rates were accounted for 94.12% and 98.39% in the upper and lower jaws; the premolars and molars were accounted for 100% and 96.67%. The two cases of early failure resulted from failure of primary stability during implant insertion. The late failures were not observed for 1 year after adding a loading to the implants. CONCLUSION: The Mg titanate implant showed good primary stability and good clinical results in both healing and function.