TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of biologic implant success parameters in type 2 diabetic glycemic control patients versus health patients
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Lagunov, Victor L.
AU - Sun, Jing
AU - George, Roy
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PY - 2019/11/1
Y1 - 2019/11/1
N2 - AIM: The aim of the present systematic literature review was to evaluate bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth (PD), and marginal bone loss (MBL) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) control patients. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ScienceDirect. The search included prospective human clinical studies that analyzed the success of dental implants in T2DM control patients. For inclusion, studies should have had a minimum of 1-year follow up and should have assessed the following parameters: MBL, BOP and PD. Prior to meta-analysis, all of the studies were assessed for quality, bias, and heterogeneity. RESULTS: Risk of bias analysis indicated that all studies were of moderate quality. After a full-text evaluation, only seven studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, with a combined total of 443 patients and 530 dental implants. The meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between parameters of implants placed in the glycemic-controlled group and healthy group in MBL (P < .001), BOP (P < .04), and PD (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study indicated that, despite being glycemic controlled, patients with T2DM were associated with a higher risk of peri-implant disease.
AB - AIM: The aim of the present systematic literature review was to evaluate bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth (PD), and marginal bone loss (MBL) in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) control patients. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Embase, and ScienceDirect. The search included prospective human clinical studies that analyzed the success of dental implants in T2DM control patients. For inclusion, studies should have had a minimum of 1-year follow up and should have assessed the following parameters: MBL, BOP and PD. Prior to meta-analysis, all of the studies were assessed for quality, bias, and heterogeneity. RESULTS: Risk of bias analysis indicated that all studies were of moderate quality. After a full-text evaluation, only seven studies met the inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis, with a combined total of 443 patients and 530 dental implants. The meta-analysis indicated a statistically significant difference between parameters of implants placed in the glycemic-controlled group and healthy group in MBL (P < .001), BOP (P < .04), and PD (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The results of the present study indicated that, despite being glycemic controlled, patients with T2DM were associated with a higher risk of peri-implant disease.
KW - dental implant
KW - glycemic
KW - implant failure
KW - implant success
KW - type 2 diabetic
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85075814401&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85075814401&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jicd.12478
DO - 10.1111/jicd.12478
M3 - Article
C2 - 31638347
AN - SCOPUS:85075814401
SN - 2041-1618
VL - 10
SP - 1
EP - 11
JO - Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry
JF - Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry
IS - 4
M1 - e12478
ER -