IADR Abstract Archives

Is Bruxism Really Influencing Implant Survival? :A Systematic Review

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure
Methods: A systematic search in the PubMed and Wiley Online Library was conducted to identify all papers in the English literature, published from April 2013 to April 2018 assessing the role of bruxism in dental implant treatments. Manual selection of the full-text article was performed, there were only 6 articles which included in this study, from 162 articles in initial searches. The selected articles were reviewed according to PICO question.
Results: There were six studies that met the inclusion criteria, with 13.313 implants from 2.864 patients. All the included studies explain the effect of patients with parafunctional habits is bruxism on implant treatment results. From the six studies, five studies explain the high rate of treatment failure in bruxism patients, and only one study revealed a lower failure rate in patients with bruxism.
Conclusions: Bruxism is a contributing factor in causing the occurrence of dental implant technical/biological complications and plays a role in dental implant failure.
South East Asia Division Meeting
2018 South East Asia Division Meeting (Da Nang, Vietnam)
Da Nang, Vietnam
2018
0116
Implantology Research
  • Admy, Sandy  ( UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN , Makassar , South Sulawesi , Indonesia )
  • Adam, Andi  ( UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN , Makassar , South Sulawesi , Indonesia )
  • Thahir, Hasanuddin  ( UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN , Makassar , South Sulawesi , Indonesia )
  • Mapanggara, Surijana  ( UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN , MAKASSAR , south of sulawesi , Indonesia )
  • Medikawaty, Rahma  ( University of Hasanuddin , Makassar , South Sulawesi , Indonesia )
  • Utami, Sari  ( UNIVERSITY OF HASANUDDIN , Makassar , South Sulawesi , Indonesia )
    • NONE
    Poster Session
    Poster Session 3-Prosthodontics and Implantology
    Thursday, 09/13/2018 , 11:15AM - 12:30PM
    Comparison of success rate of implant treatment in patients with or without bruxism
    Author and YearType of Study and
    Geographic region    		Age
    (Years)    		Total implant/total patientsDuration of follow-upBruxismnon-bruxismAssessment Of Outcome
    B.r. Chrcanovic,
    et al 2016    		Retrospective study, Sweden≤30->603549/994≤1 year,
    1 year < x ≤ 5 years,
    5 years < x ≤ 10 years,
    >10 years    		24/185
    (13 %)
    implant    		155/3364 (4,6%)
    Implant    		According to the Lekholm and Zarb (1985) classification of bone quantity/quality.
    Alexandra et al
    2012    		A cross-Sectional study,
    Belgium    		26-86266/1035-18 years7/18
    (38,9%)
    patients    		31/85 (36,5%)
    patients    		The prevalences
    of peri-implantitis
    Torsten mundt
    et al
    Germany 2013    		Retrospective study, Germany41.1–69.831/2312.7–47.9
    years    		9/9
    (100%)
    patients    		1/14 (5,6%)
    Patients    		Core fractures and
    minor veneer fractures (chipping)
    Maris Victoria
    et al
    2015    		Retrospective clinical study,
    Granada Spain    		51.1±18.2276/1421 week postsurgery6/117
    (5%)
    implant    		10/143 (6,5%)
    implant    		Early implant failure (implant loss
    before prosthetic loading; yes/no)
    Bruno Ramos
    et al
    2016    		Retrospective study,
    Sweden    		48,1±22,5854/196500 days25/98
    (25,5%)
    patient    		11/98
    (11,2%)
    patient    		failed due to lose/lack of osseointegration,
    implants fractured
    Bruno Ramos
    et al
    2017    		Retrospective study,
    Sweden    		59,5-62,18337/14061year,
    1year< x ≤5 years,
    5 years< x ≤10 years,
    10 years< x ≤20 years,    		331/620
    (53,3%)
    implant    		261/7717
    (3,3%)
    implant    		Failed due to lack/loss
    of osseointegration, fractured implants

    3006545_File000000.jpg
    3006545_File000000.jpg