« Prev |
2024 Jan-Mar; Vol 15, No 1:e1 |
Next » |
e1 |
Survival and Success of Dental Implants in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: a Systematic Review J Oral Maxillofac Res 2024;15(1):e1 doi:10.5037/jomr.2024.15101 Abstract | HTML | PDF | XML |
Survival and Success of Dental Implants in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: a Systematic Review
1Oral Surgery, Section for Oral Biology and Immunopathology, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
2Oral Rehabilitation, Section for Oral Health, Society and Technology, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
3Oral Pathology and Medicine, Section for Oral Biology and Immunopathology, Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
4Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Centre of Head and Orthopaedics, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Corresponding Author:
Nørre Allé 20, 2200, Copenhagen
Denmark
Phone: +45 28 35 69 64
E-mail: emil.hyldahl@outlook.com
ABSTRACT
Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review is to disclose the impact of autoimmune diseases and their medical treatment on dental implant survival and success.
Material and Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Library and Embase up to December 6th, 2021. Any clinical study on patients with an autoimmune disease in whom implant therapy was performed was eligible. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. For each autoimmune disease group, data synthesis was divided into three groups: 1) overall results of the autoimmune disease, 2) overall results of corresponding control groups and 3) overall results of the autoimmune disease with a concomitant autoimmune disease (a subgroup of group 1). Descriptive statistics were used.
Results: Of 4,865 identified articles, 67 could be included and mainly comprising case reports and retrospective studies with an overall low quality. Implant survival rate was 50 to 100% on patient and implant level after a weighted mean follow-up of 17.7 to 68.1 months. Implant success was sporadically reported. Data on immunosuppressive medication were too heterogeneously reported to allow detailed analysis.
Conclusions: Overall, a high implant survival rate was reported in patients with autoimmune diseases. However, the identified studies were characterized by a low quality. No conclusions could be made regarding implant success and the effect of immunosuppressants due to heterogeneous reporting.
J Oral Maxillofac Res 2024;15(1):e1
doi: 10.5037/jomr.2024.15101
Accepted for publication: 31 March 2024
Keywords: alveolar bone loss; autoimmune diseases; connective tissue diseases; dental implants; immunosuppressive agents; systematic review.
INTRODUCTION
Since the first preclinical and clinical studies with dental implants carried out by Brånemark et al. [1] in the 1960s, dental implant therapy has become a reliable method for replacement of missing teeth. Several studies have documented high implant survival rates > 95% after 5 to 10 years of follow-up in systemically healthy individuals [2,3]. Based on these successful and predictable long-term outcomes, the indications for using dental implant therapy have gradually extended to include patients with various systemic diseases, including patients who may be immunocompromised due to autoimmune diseases (ADs) and/or treatment with immunosuppressants [4-7].
ADs are characterized by an abnormal immunologic response to self-antigens, leading to an organ-specific or systemic inflammatory tissue destruction. The cardinal characteristics of autoimmunity are the presence of self-reactive T cells, circulating autoantibodies, and inflammation [8]. The exact aetiology of ADs is largely unknown but is believed to be an interplay between genetic, endocrinologic and environmental factors e.g., nutrition, lifestyle, and exposure to infection. ADs are estimated to affect 3 to 5% of the global population, with a predilection for females [8,9]. The reason for this predilection is unknown [8-10]. Some ADs are classified as systemic connective tissue diseases (CTDs) or as organ-specific diseases. Autoimmune CTDs such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA) affect several organs and tissues, whereas e.g. pemphigus vulgaris is an organ-specific mucocutaneous disease characterized by the presence of autoantibodies directed against keratinocyte surface antigens [11].
Patients with ADs may display a variety of oral manifestations including mucosal ulcerations, erosions, erythema, soreness and pain, xerostomia, salivary gland dysfunction, candidiasis, dental caries, periodontal disease, temporomandibular disorder, and limited mouth opening [12,13]. A number of these manifestations may compromise oral rehabilitation, especially when treatment includes mucosa-supported removable dental prostheses [14].
Patients with ADs often require medical treatments including immunosuppressive agents [15,16]. Commonly used immunosuppressants include glucocorticoids (e.g., prednisone), conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (e.g., methotrexate) and biologics (e.g., adalimumab). Many of these agents also have antiinflammatory properties [15-20]. However, treatment with immunosuppressants make patients more susceptible to infections, and some agents have adverse effects compromising bone metabolism potentially leading to loss of bone mineral density [16,18,20-22]. It is also well-documented that long-term (and high dose) treatment with glucocorticoids predispose to the development of secondary osteoporosis [16,21,22].
Soft and hard tissue healing is crucial to obtain and preserve successful dental implant therapy. Osseointegration, which is defined as the direct contact between living bone and the implant surface, at a light microscopic level, results from the process of osseous wound healing around an implant [23]. In addition, healing of the oral mucosa surrounding the implant is important as the mucosa forms a barrier that protects the implant surface against microbial colonization [23-25]. The processes of obtaining and preserving osseointegration and soft tissue healing are therefore directly linked to an adequate immune response. The suppressed immune system, increased risk of infection, and the inhibitory effect on bone metabolism can potentially influence osseointegration and, ultimately, impair the survival and success of dental implants in patients with ADs. Hence, patients with ADs may be additionally prone to early implant loss characterized by failure to establish osseointegration and late implant loss caused by failure to maintain the established osseointegration e.g., due to peri-implantitis (PI) [26].
As patients with ADs often suffer from severe oral manifestations, implant-supported rehabilitation appears to offer a better therapeutic option than mucosa-supported prostheses [12-14]. A comprehensive understanding of the potential influence of ADs and their medical treatment on the prognosis of dental implant therapy is therefore needed. The aim of this systematic review is to disclose the impact of autoimmune diseases and their medical treatment on dental implant survival and success.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Protocol and registration
This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [27]. The study protocol was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Prospero registration number: CRD42022323010.
The protocol can be accessed at:
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=323010
Focus question
The focus question of this study was conducted following the PICO format (population, intervention, comparison, and outcome) as described in Table 1.
Table 1 PICO guidelines |
Information sources
The following databases were utilized for the literature search through a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and text terms: MEDLINE (PubMed), The Cochrane Library and Embase. A hand search was additionally performed using reference lists of identified articles.
Search
A systematic literature search was performed by E.H. on the 6th of December 2021 in collaboration with a librarian. A detailed description of the search strategy for Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed) and The Cochrane Library is presented in Appendices 1 - 4.
Types of studies
Randomized controlled trials (RCT), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, case series and case reports up to December 6th, 2021 were considered eligible.
Types of participants
Patients diagnosed with an AD who have been rehabilitated with dental implants.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Clinical studies written in English language regarding patients diagnosed with an AD who have been rehabilitated with dental implants were included in the present study. In vitro studies, preclinical studies, reviews, and studies involving patients < 18 years of age were excluded.
Sequential search strategy
Initially, duplicate publications were removed. One author (E.H.) screened titles for eligibility and abstracts and full-text articles were subsequently screened independently by two authors (E.H., S.S.J.). Title and abstract screenings were performed using an online screening tool Rayyan® (Qatar Computing Research Institute; HBKU, Doha, Qatar [www.rayyan.ai]). Studies that did not fulfil the inclusion criteria were excluded. Disagreements were resolved through discussion by the two reviewers. If consensus could not be reached, disagreements were resolved by consulting a third author (K.G.). The level of concordance between the two reviewers after abstract and full-text screening was calculated through Cohen’s kappa (κ) coefficient.
Data extraction
Data extraction of included full-text articles was performed by one author (E.H.) using a dedicated data extraction sheet. The corresponding authors were contacted through e-mail for clarification if missing data were identified.
Data items
The following parameters were extracted when available: Authors, year of publication, study design, period when the study was conducted, aim of the study, follow-up period, number of patients, dropouts, age, gender, smoking habits, number of implants, location of implants, timing of implant placement, timing of implant loading, ADs, immunosuppressants (e.g., steroids, conventional DMARDs, chemotherapeutics and biologics), prophylactic antibiotic treatment, survival rate of dental implants (patient and implant level), survival rate of suprastructures (patient and suprastructure level), success rate (patient and implant level), crestal bone loss, biologic complications (PI and peri-implant mucositis), other biologic complications, pain, crestal bone loss at first year, annual crestal bone loss thereafter, radiolucency, mobility, infection, probing depth, suppuration, bleeding, swelling, plaque, width of keratinized mucosa, recession, minor complications, major complications/failures, functional outcome, aesthetic outcome, discomfort/paraesthesia, satisfaction with appearance, ability to chew, ability to taste and general satisfaction.
Parameters from crestal bone loss up to and including general satisfaction are implant success criteria described by Papaspyridakos et al. [28].
Risk of bias within studies
The scientific quality and risk of bias of the included cohort studies (case series, prospective studies and retrospective studies) and case-control studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analysis [29]. This was conducted independently by two authors (E.H., S.S.J.). Disagreements were resolved through discussion by the two authors. If consensus could not be reached, disagreements were resolved by consulting a third author (K.G.). The level of quality is represented through the number of stars given for each study within each category. In the selection and outcome/exposure categories, a study can receive at the most one star for each of the four and three numbered items. In the comparability category, a study can receive the highest score of two stars. A study can be given an overall maximum score of 9 stars. The quality of a study is classified as either low quality (0 to 3 stars), medium quality (4 to 6 stars), or high quality (7 to 9 stars).
Data synthesis
The data synthesis for each AD group was divided into three groups: 1) overall results of the AD, 2) overall results of corresponding control groups and 3) overall results of the AD with a concomitant AD (a subgroup of group 1).
Statistical analysis
Only descriptive statistics were applied. Where possible, weighted means were calculated. If data were presented as medians, weighted medians were also calculated.
RESULTS
Study selection
Initially 4,865 articles were identified via literature search through databases and citation search. After removal of duplicates, 3,535 titles were screened. Then 500 abstracts were evaluated and thereafter 176 full-text articles. Articles were directly assessed by full-text screening when no abstracts were available. A total of 67 studies could therefore be included in the present systematic review [4-7,14,24,25,30-89]. The κ value representing the level of concordance between the two reviewers after abstract and full-text screening were 0.85 and 0.86, respectively, disclosing a high level of agreement. The search, screening, and selection process is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the search, screening, and selection process. The literature search through databases and citation search resulted in 4,865 articles. After removal of duplicates 3,535 titles were screened and thereafter 500 abstracts (κ = 0.85). Then 176 articles were screened (κ = 0.86) and a total of 67 articles were included in the review. |
Reasons for excluding a total of 109 studies after full-text assessment are presented in Appendix 5.
Risk of bias within studies
The quality assessment and risk of bias of included cohort and case-control studies is displayed in Table 2. The quality of the 37 case reports [30-66] could not be assessed using NOS and therefore these studies were classified as low quality. Of the 24 cohort [4-7,14,24,25,67-83] and six case-control studies [84-89], fourteen articles were classified as low [5-7,24,67,70,73,74,78,79,81-83,86], fifteen as medium [4,14,25,68,69,71,72,75-77,80,84,85,87-89] and one as high quality [85]. Based on the predominance of case reports and studies with low quality, the overall risk of bias of the identified studies was judged to be high.
Table 2 Quality assessment of included cohort and case-control studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale 0 to 3 stars = low-quality; 4 to 6 stars = medium quality; 7 to 9 stars = high quality. |
Study characteristics and outcomes
An overview of characteristics and outcomes of included studies is presented in Tables 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E, 3F, Tables 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E and Tables 5A, 5B. The included studies comprised 37 case reports [30-66], fourteen retrospective studies [4,5,7,24,67-76], eight case series [6,77-83], six case-control studies [84-89] and two prospective studies [14,25].
Table 3A Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune connective tissue diseases - rheumatoid arthritis (RA) a = weighted mean or median; b = remission at implant placement; c = early loss NR; d = late loss NR; e = criteria by Buser et al. [116]; f = criteria by Karoussis et al. [117]. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CCS = case-control study; CR = case report; CS = case series; DM = dermatomyositis; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; RS = retrospective study; SSc = systemic scleroderma; sSS = secondary Sjögren's syndrome. |
Table 3B Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune connective tissue diseases - Sjögren's syndrome (SS) a = weighted mean or median; b = remission at implant placement; c = reported for RA+CTDs but NR specific for sSS; d = late loss NR; e = criteria by Esposito et al. [26]. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CCS = case-control study; CR = case report; CS = case series; CTDs = connective tissue diseases; HT = hypothyroidism; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; OLP = oral lichen planus; PI = peri-implantitis; PS = prospective study; pSS = primary Sjögren's syndrome; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; RS = retrospective study; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; SSc = systemic scleroderma; sSS = secondary Sjögren's syndrome; ST = Still's disease. |
Table 3C Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune connective tissue diseases - systemic scleroderma (SSc) a = weighted mean or median; b = reported for RA+CTDs but NR specific for SSc; c = late loss NR. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CCS = case-control study; CR = case report; CS = case series; CTDs = connective tissue diseases; FA = fibrosing alveolitis; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; RS = retrospective study; sSS = secondary Sjögren's syndrome. |
Table 3D Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune connective tissue diseases - systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) a = weighted mean or median. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CR = case report; HT = hypothyroidism; M/F = male/female; MCTD = mixed connective tissue disease; N = number; NR = not reported; PA = polyarthritis; PI = peri-implantitis; RS = retrospective study; sSS = secondary Sjögren's syndrome. |
Table 3E Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune connective tissue diseases - polyarthritis (PA) a = weighted mean or median. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CR = case report; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus. |
Table 3F Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune connective tissue diseases - other autoimmune connective tissue diseases (CTDs) a = weighted mean or median. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CR = case report; CS = case series; GCA = giant cell arteritis; M/F = male/female; MCTD = mixed connective tissue disease; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; PN = polyarteritis nodosa; PR = polymyalgia rheumatica; RS = retrospective study; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; sSS = secondary Sjögren's syndrome; ST = Still's disease. |
Table 4A Characteristics and outcomes of studies including other autoimmune diseases - hypothyroidism (HT) a = weighted mean or median; b = submental abscess with extension to submandibular spaces; c = early loss NR; d = late loss NR; e = criteria by Zarb et al. [118]. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CCS = case-control study; CR = case report; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; RS = retrospective study; SLE = systemic lupus erythematosus; sSS = secondary Sjögren's syndrome; UC = ulcerative colitis. |
Table 4B Characteristics and outcomes of studies including other autoimmune diseases - type 1 diabetes (T1D) a = weighted mean or median; b = early loss NR; c = late loss NR; d = criteria by Albrektsson et al. [119]. ADs = autoimmune diseases; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; RS = retrospective study. |
Table 4C Characteristics and outcomes of studies including other autoimmune diseases - Crohn's disease (CD) a = weighted mean or median; b = early loss NR; c = late loss NR. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CR = case report; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; RS = retrospective study. |
Table 4D Characteristics and outcomes of studies including other autoimmune diseases - dermatomyositis (DM) a = weighted mean or median; b = remission at implant placement; c = reported for RA+CTDs but NR specific for DM. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CCS = case-control study; CTDs = connective tissue diseases; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; RS = retrospective study. |
Table 4E Characteristics and outcomes of studies including other autoimmune diseases - other autoimmune diseases a = weighted mean or median; b = remission at implant placement; c = submental abscess with extension to submandibular spaces; d = late loss NR. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CR = case report; FA = fibrosing alveolitis; HT = hypothyroidism; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; MG = myasthenia gravis; MS = multiple sclerosis; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; PSO = psoriasis; RS = retrospective study; SA = sarcoidosis; SSc = systemic scleroderma; UC = ulcerative colitis. |
Table 5A Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune diseases with mucosal manifestations - oral lichen planus (OLP) a = weighted mean or median; b = the remaining 2 patients in this CS were excluded from data extraction due to insufficient information; c = remission at implant placement; d = early loss NR; e = continued systemic glucocorticoids administration post implant placement; f = discontinued systemic glucocorticoids administration 12 weeks post implant placement; g = criteria by Esposito et al. [26]; h = criteria by Buser et al. [116]. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CCS = case-control study; CR = case report; CS = case series; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; PS = prospective study; pSS = primary Sjögren's syndrome; RS = retrospective study. |
Table 5B Characteristics and outcomes of studies including autoimmune diseases with mucosal manifestations - bullous diseases (BDs) a = weighted mean or median; b = criteria by Albrektsson et al. [119]. ADs = autoimmune diseases; CR = case report; CS = case series; Irr. = irrelevant; M/F = male/female; N = number; NR = not reported; PI = peri-implantitis; PV = pemphigus vulgaris; RDEB = recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa; RS = retrospective study. |
Due to large heterogeneity among included studies a meta-analysis could not be performed. Instead, a qualitative synthesis of data was conducted. In addition, due to heterogeneous reporting, the following parameters were excluded from the final tables: dropouts, age, smoking habits, location of implants, timing of implant placement, timing of implant loading, immunosuppressants, prophylactic antibiotic treatment, peri-implant mucositis, other biologic complications, pain, crestal bone loss at first year, annual crestal bone loss thereafter, radiolucency, mobility, infection, probing depth, suppuration, bleeding, swelling, plaque, width of keratinized mucosa, recession, minor complications, major complications/failures, functional outcome, aesthetic outcome, discomfort/paraesthesia, satisfaction with appearance, ability to chew, ability to taste and general satisfaction.
The following disease groups are not emphasized in the sections below due to a low quantity of available data and heterogeneous reporting of studies: polyarthritis (Table 3E) [38-40], other autoimmune CTDs (Table 3F) [7,33,51,81], type 1 diabetes (Table 4B) [4,67,70], dermatomyositis (Table 4D) [7,71,84] and other ADs (Table 4E) [7,36,46,57,75].
Overall, a predominance of females was present in the disease groups and the most prevalent immunosuppressive treatment included glucocorticoids. In general, implant success was inconsistently reported using a variety of success criteria. In most disease groups, a predominance of early implant loss was observed. Autoimmune CTDs comprise the largest disease group in terms of quantity of articles, patients, and implants.
Autoimmune connective tissue diseases
Rheumatoid arthritis
Twelve articles (six retrospective studies, four case reports, one case series and one case-control study) were included [4,5,7,24,34,43,58,66,67,71,81,84]. A total of 363 implants were documented in 124 patients (male/female (M/F) ratio: 1/6.5) with RA. Survival rate of implants was 95.2% (118/124) and 97.2% (353/363) on patient and implant level, respectively, after a weighted mean follow-up period of 50.8 months. Of the lost implants, 70% (7/10) were early losses. Survival rate of suprastructures was 100% on patient (67/67) as well as suprastructure (49/49) level. Weighted mean crestal bone loss for the RA group was 0.36 mm and weighted median crestal bone loss was 2 mm [5,58,66,71,84]. In addition, weighted median crestal bone loss for the RA with concomitant ADs group was 2.2 mm (weighted mean follow-up period of 52.8 months) [58,66,71,84]. PI was diagnosed in 8.3% (1/12) of the patients and 1.8% (1/55) of the implants. Implant success rate was 94.4% (119/126) on implant level. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including RA are presented in Table 3A.
Sjögren’s syndrome
Twenty articles (eight case reports, six case series, three retrospective studies, two case-control studies and one prospective study) were included [6,7,14,34,45,53,55,58,61,65,66,71,73,78-81,83,84,87]. A total of 120 Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) patients (M/F ratio: 1/16.5) with 484 implants were included making it the disease group with the highest number of studies and implants. After a weighted mean follow-up period of 68.1 months (weighted median: 46 months) an implant survival rate of 95.5% (462/484) at implant level and 90.8% (109/120) at patient level could be calculated. Of the lost implants, 81.8% (18/22) were early losses. The suprastructure survival rate was 100% on patient (36/36) and suprastructure (43/43) level. Weighted mean crestal bone loss was 1.49 mm (weighted median: 0.89 mm). PI was diagnosed in 12.3% (7/57) of the patients and around 9.4% (16/171) of the implants. However, PI was only reported to occur in one study [87]. In a study on eight patients with secondary SS, 9/54 implants were lost in 4/8 patients. In addition, all patients had problems wearing conventional dentures prior to rehabilitation with implant-supported dental prosthesis. Improved patient-reported outcome measures were recorded at two years follow-up after loading of the implant-supported dental prostheses [14]. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including SS are presented in Table 3B.
Systemic scleroderma
Fourteen articles (eleven case reports, one case series, one case-control study and one retrospective study) were included [6,31,32,42,44,47,48,55,57,59,60,62,71,84]. A total of 20 patients with systemic scleroderma (M/F ratio: 1/12), were documented with 92 implants. The implant survival rate was 98.9% (91/92) and 95% (19/20) on implant and patient level, respectively, after a weighted mean follow-up period of 33.6 months. Suprastructure survival rate was 100% on patient (14/14) as well as on suprastructure (11/11) level. The weighted mean crestal bone loss was 0.37 mm and PI was diagnosed in 20% (1/5) of the patients and 2.4% (1/41) of the implants. No valid patient-reported outcome was available for this disease group. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including SSc are presented in Table 3C.
Systemic lupus erythematosus
Six articles (four case reports and two retrospective studies) were included [5,7,37,40,51,65]. A total of 58 implants were documented in twelve patients (M/F ratio: 1/2) with systemic lupus erythematosus. After a weighted mean follow-up period of 47 months the implant survival rate was 98.3% (57/58) and 91.7% (11/12) on implant and patient level respectively. The suprastructure survival rate was 100% on patient (12/12) and suprastructure (9/9) level. PI was diagnosed in 0% of the patients (0/9) and implants (0/41). Characteristics and outcomes of studies including SLE are presented in Table 3D.
Autoimmune diseases with mucosal manifestations
Oral lichen planus
Eleven studies (three case-control studies, three case series, two case reports, two retrospective studies and one prospective study) characterized by a low to medium quality were included [6,25,41,52,68,69,80,82,85,86,88]. Of the included cohort and case-control studies three were low [6,82,86], five were medium [25,68,69,80,88] and one was high quality [85]. This was the only disease group where the prognosis of dental implant therapy could be based on studies with a low to medium quality.
A total of 303 implants were documented in 142 oral lichen planus (OLP) patients (M/F ratio: 1/2.7) making it the disease group with the highest number of included patients. The implant survival rate was 83.3% (105/126) on patient level and 82.6% (204/247) on implant level after a weighted mean follow-up period of 43.6 months (weighted median: 48 months). Of the lost implants 97.7% (42/43) occurred early. The weighted mean crestal bone loss was 1.05 mm. PI was diagnosed in 25.4% (17/67) implants and in 25% (1/4) of the patients.
In one study, 55 implants were placed in 23 patients with OLP and flare-up of their disease. Of those, 42 implants were lost (survival rate: 23.6%). Subsequently, the OLP lesions were treated with systemic glucocorticoids leading to complete remission. Hereafter implant therapy was repeated. None of the 42 newly placed implants were lost after a follow-up of 36 [25] and 48 months [86]. In another study, sixteen patients with OLP received 56 implants. Of these seven patients used topical glucocorticoids daily. PI developed around 25% (14/56) implants and in contrast, PI developed around 16% (8/50) implants in the control group without OLP. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.254) [88].
One study reported a median Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 score (a measure of oral quality of life performed in relation to dental treatment) [90]. Lower scores indicate improved oral quality of life [90]. For sixteen patients with OLP and 56 implants (three overdentures and thirteen partial fixed prosthesis) the score was 7 (0 - 22), for sixteen patients with OLP without implants it was 13 (1 - 23), and for sixteen controls with 50 implants (three overdentures and thirteen partial fixed prosthesis) the score was 0.5 (0 - 14). The differences in OHIP-14 scores were statistically significant (P < 0.001) between all groups [88]. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including OLP are presented in Table 5A.
Bullous diseases
Nine articles (seven case reports, one case series and one retrospective study) were included [30,49,50,54,56,63,64,72,77]. A total of 24 patients (M/F ratio: 1/2) with bullous diseases and 149 implants were reported. One patient suffered from pemphigus vulgaris, and the remaining patients were affected by recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB). After a weighted mean follow-up of 64.9 months the implant survival rate was 98.7% (147/149) and 100% (11/11) on implant and patient level respectively. The suprastructure survival rate was 90.9% (20/22) on patient level and 94.4% (34/36) on suprastructure level. The weighted mean crestal bone loss was 1.42 mm and PI was diagnosed in 0% patients (0/5) and implants (0/28).
A study on thirteen patients with RDEB treated with 80 implants and 20 full-arch prosthesis reported a mean satisfaction score (VAS ranging from 0 to 10) with the received treatment of > 9 for all assessed parameters (comfort, self-esteem, aesthetics, phonation and mastication) except for hygiene with a score of 6 to 8 [72]. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including BDs are presented in Table 5B.
Other autoimmune diseases
Hypothyroidism
Six studies (three retrospective studies, two case reports and one case-control study) were included [4,36,65,67,76,89]. The studies comprised 52 hypothyroidism patients (M/F ratio: 0/23) with 225 implants. The implant survival rate was 83.3% (5/6) on patient and 93.3% (210/225) on implant level after a weighted mean follow-up of 52.2 months. Of the lost implants, 46.7% (7/15) were early losses. One study reported a late survival rate of 93.7% (104/111) implants in 25 hypothyroidism patients [4]. In another study, a patient with hypothyroidism and ulcerative colitis, treated with adalimumab, lost all five placed implants early. Pain, mobility, PI, and osteonecrosis were present at all implants. In addition, a submental abscess developed with extension into the submandibular space bilaterally [36]. Survival rate of suprastructures was 100% on patient (1/1) and suprastructure (2/2) level. PI was diagnosed in 40% (2/5) on patient level and 100% (5/5) on implant level. Success rate was 96.3% (79/82) on implant level. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including HT are presented in Table 4A.
Crohn’s disease
Four studies (three retrospective studies and one case report) were included comprising a total of six Crohn’s disease patients (M/F ratio: 1/0) with 44 implants [4,35,67,74]. After a weighted mean follow-up period of 17.7 months, the implant survival rate was 50% (2/4) on patient and 84.1% (37/44) on implant level. One case report reported survival of all implants [35], but the remaining studies reported loss of one to three implants [4,67,74]. Suprastructure survival was not reported. Characteristics and outcomes of studies including CD are presented in Table 4C.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this review was to disclose the effect of ADs and their medical treatment on the prognosis of dental implants. Overall, dental implant survival was documented to be high in patients with ADs. However, higher proportions of early implant loss were observed for certain ADs, which may indicate a compromised capacity of establishing osseointegration. All levels of clinical evidence were considered, and a total of 67 articles could be included characterized by a high risk of bias and a low quality. Therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution.
Several of the included studies report on cohorts with different ADs and/or co-existing ADs. Co-existing ADs obviously complicate the interpretation of results on how a specific AD affects dental implant survival. However, simultaneous presence of ADs is relatively common, and about 25% of patients with an AD are prone to develop an additional AD [91,92].
ADs predominantly affect females [93]. Therefore, as anticipated, most of the implant patients included in the studies were females.
In the various disease groups, most implant losses occurred early, ranging between 46.7 to 100% of the lost implants. Early implant loss is characterized by failure to establish osseointegration due to impaired bone healing [26]. In contrast to the findings of the present review, a large retrospective study on a broad unselected population, including more than 10,000 implants, reported an implant failure rate of 6.4% of which 27.4% were lost early [94]. It is presently unknown whether the relatively high rate of early implant loss among patients with ADs disclosed by the present review is related to the ADs and/or the immunosuppressive agents often taken by these groups of patients. One case report included in this review reported early loss of all five placed implants and a severe infection in a patient with hypothyroidism and ulcerative colitis receiving adalimumab [36]. However, Chrcanovic et al. [94] did not find a significant correlation between early implant loss and immunosuppressive treatment and hypothyroidism.
The overall suprastructure survival rate for all disease groups (94.4 to 100%) was comparable to the one reported for the general population (96.4%) after five years follow-up [95]. Most disease groups fulfilled the success criteria regarding crestal bone loss [28]. In general, most disease groups reported PI rates similar to the one reported for the general population (20% and 10% on patient and implant level, respectively) after 5 to 10 years follow-up [96].
Autoimmune connective tissue diseases
The overall implant survival rate in patients with autoimmune CTDs (95.5 to 100%) was comparable to the one reported for the general population (97.2%) after five years follow-up [97]. However, a lower implant survival rate (87%) was reported in patients with SS in a prospective study [14]. In contrast to other studies with higher survival rates in patients with SS [12,13,98], the study included exclusively patients with secondary SS (seven patients with SS and RA and one patient with SS and systemic scleroderma) [14]. These findings indicate that the impaired implant survival rate may not entirely be related to SS itself, but potentially rather to the compromised oral health and healing processes caused by the additional CTDs [12,13,98].
In the present review, patients with RA had the highest crestal bone loss, and RA with concomitant ADs was the only group of patients that did not fulfil the implant success criteria regarding crestal bone loss [28]. Crestal bone loss is mainly caused by dental plaque-induced inflammation, which may be accentuated by an impaired blood flow due to endothelial dysfunction in patients with RA [99,100]. The increased crestal bone loss [71,84] may also be ascribed to the frequent treatment of RA patients with glucocorticoids. Thus, in the study by Krennmair et al. [71], 76.5% of the 34 patients were treated with glucocorticoids. Prolonged administration of glucocorticoids has an adverse effect on bone metabolism and may lead to reduction of bone mineral density and development of osteoporosis. Glucocorticoids reduce the number of osteoblasts because of apoptosis of mature osteoblasts and a depressed formation of osteoblast precursors. Glucocorticoids also affect osteoclasts reducing osteoclastogenesis and increasing the osteoclast lifespan. Ultimately, this leads to a sustained osteoclast quantity but a pronounced reduction in the number of osteoblasts and bone formation. Furthermore, an increased osteocyte apoptosis appears reducing vascular endothelial growth factor, skeletal angiogenesis, bone interstitial fluid and bone strength [101].
Autoimmune diseases with mucosal manifestations
In the present review, ADs with mucosal manifestations include OLP and bullous diseases. Studies on OLP generally had the highest quality of all included studies, with the lowest risk of bias. Nevertheless, they were still categorized as low to medium quality studies [6,25,41,52,68,69,80,82,85,86,88].
The implant survival rate on implant level was 82.6% for patients with OLP, and thus lower than that reported after five years follow-up in the general population (97.2%) [97]. Findings indicate that the reduced implant survival rate is related to impaired control of OLP and flare-up of the disease in relation to implant therapy. Accordingly, one study reported a low implant survival rate (13% and 23.6% on patient and implant level, respectively) in patients with acute flare-up of OLP [25]. Systemic treatment with glucocorticoids resulted in complete remission of OLP, and implant therapy was repeated and none of the newly placed implants were lost [25,86]. Most studies on OLP reported treatment with glucocorticoids [41,68,69,80,85,86,88] and some also reported implant placement during OLP remission [41,68,85,86]. These studies report a high implant survival rate between 98.5 to 100%, emphasizing the importance of implant placement in successfully treated OLP patients and in remission of the disease. The level of disease control appears to be of greater importance for implant survival than OLP itself [102], and may be of even more importance than the potential risk of using glucocorticoids. On the other hand, most often, OLP is treated with topical glucocorticoids as opposed to RA patients on systemic glucocorticoids and may thus be expected to have a less compromised bone metabolism. Based on clinical appearance, OLP can be classified into six types, i.e., the: ulcerative, erosive, bullous, reticular, papular, and plaque-like type. The first three types are usually symptomatic causing e.g., burning, itching sensation and pain [103]. Serval studies describe clinical challenges for OLP patients to tolerate conventional removable prostheses due to the fragile oral mucosa and associated pain [41,54,68,77,80,104]. The prevalence of PI in patients with OLP (25.4%) is relatively high within a shorter follow-up period compared to the general implant population (10%) [96]. However, the high prevalence of PI was mainly based on one study that also reported high prevalence in the control group [88]. Therefore, patients with OLP may be strong candidates for dental implant therapy, provided the OLP is well treated and that patients are enrolled in a strict maintenance program.
The implant survival rate in patients with bullous diseases (98.7%) is comparable to the general population (97.2%) after five years follow-up [97]. Epidermolysis bullosa (EB) is characterized by mechanical fragility of the skin and mucosa with formation of painful erosions, blisters, and ulcerations often caused by minor trauma. Additional oral manifestations of EB include microstomia, ankyloglossia, and caries compromising food intake and swallowing [105,106]. Use of removable dental prostheses in patients with EB is challenging, especially because of microstomia and the formation of mucosal blisters due to friction between mucosa and the prostheses [54,77,104]. Implant-supported oral rehabilitation may therefore be highly beneficial for patients with EB as a sufficient masticatory function decreases the risk of oral and esophageal soft tissue injury and therefore scar formation. This reduces progression of esophageal strictures, dysphagia, and the risk of malnutrition [105,107,108]. Patient satisfaction scores after implant treatment in patients with RDEB were high for almost all parameters, except for oral hygiene [72]. This is consistent with the literature reporting limitations regarding oral hygiene procedures in EB patients due to pseudosyndactyly, microstomia, ankyloglossia, and blistering of oral mucosa and on hands [77,109,110].
Other autoimmune diseases
In the group with other ADs, the implant survival rate (50 to 100%) was markedly reduced for all diseases, except for hypothyroidism (93.3%) and dermatomyositis (100%) compared to the general population (97.2%) after five years follow-up [97]. The studies comprised a limited number of patients and implants, and even small variations had a marked impact on the overall results.
Prosthetic treatment
Problems regarding conventional removable dentures have also been described for CTDs and particularly for patients with SS and systemic scleroderma. SS patients have sensitive and dry mucosa causing pain and functional complications [14,87]. Systemic scleroderma patients have microstomia and sclerodactyly [12,13,111] compromising oral hygiene and the former making patients unable to use removable dentures [42,47,55,59,62,104]. Due to oral manifestations implant-supported fixed rehabilitation can be highly beneficial for OLP, RDEB, SS and systemic scleroderma patients relative to conventional removable dentures reducing mucosal load and for the first three mentioned diseases positively influencing patients’ quality of life [14,72,88,104]. For systemic scleroderma patients it is conceivable that implant-supported fixed rehabilitation will positively effect patients’ quality of life. The quality of life and functional benefits attained from implant-supported rehabilitation may outweigh the risks related to implant therapy [102] and a slightly reduced implant survival rate may therefore be acceptable in selected groups of patients.
When treating patients of ADs, it is important as a clinician to consider the chronic nature of the diseases. ADs progress [112] and for that reason when making a treatment plan it is equally important to treat the present dental problems as well as considering long-term consequences of the disease, such as dental decay and microstomia. In some cases, it may therefore be relevant with a more radical treatment strategy.
Successful cementless total knee arthroplasties rely today also on osseointegration similar to dental implants [113]. Retrospective studies on cementless total knee arthroplasties in RA patients report similar survival rates of 97 to 99% as for dental implants documented by the present systematic review [114,115].
Limitations
The current review comprises several limitations: Only articles published in English were included and gray literature was not sought. However, taken this into consideration the authors estimate that the risk of missing important data is low and without major impact on the overall results.
The literature search, screening and selection process revealed that studies in the field of dental implant therapy in patients with ADs, mainly comprise case reports and retrospective studies. Additionally, it revealed a lack of high-quality prospective studies with large patient cohorts and long-term follow-up. Accordingly, the results in the various groups of patients with ADs should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, systematic long-term documentation of implant therapy in patients with ADs is highly encouraged.
In addition, one author extracted data from included articles. Most of the examined parameters were heterogeneous reported and some barely reported (e.g., suppuration, width of keratinized mucosa, recession, and aesthetic outcome). Success criteria were inconsistently reported using different criteria. Also, it was not possible to determine the implant survival relative to administration of immunosuppressants, due to heterogeneous reporting of included studies. Meta-analysis of included studies could not be performed due to heterogeneous study designs, treatments, and reporting.
In general, due to low quantity of available data, for each individual disease group, small variations in the data set often resulted in a big impact on the overall results. This is in most disease groups represented through differences in implant survival rate on patient and implant level. The implant survival rate is frequently lower on patient level due to the occurrence of a small cohort of patients, treated with a high number of implants.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the present systematic review, dental implant therapy can be considered feasible in patients with autoimmune diseases. Overall, the review discloses a high implant survival rate in patients with autoimmune diseases, many of which receiving immunosuppressive therapy, after mid-term follow-up. Implant success rates were inconsistently reported using a variety of criteria. Outcomes after implant placement in patients on immunosuppressive therapy could rarely be related to the individual types of medication. In general, the level of evidence was low with a high risk of bias. Therefore, systematic long-term documentation of implant therapy in patients with autoimmune diseases is encouraged.
APPENDIX 1 - 5
Appendix 1 Search history |
Appendix 2A Search strategy for Embase until 6th December 2021 |
Appendix 2B Search strategy for Embase until 6th December 2021 |
Appendix 3 Search strategy for MEDLINE (PubMed) until 6th December 2021 |
Appendix 4A Search strategy for The Cochrane Library until 6th December 2021 |
Appendix 4B Search strategy for The Cochrane Library until 6th December 2021 |
Appendix 5 List of excluded studies subsequent to full text screening |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS
All authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this study.
The authors express their gratitude to Mrs. S. Rimborg (librarian at University of Copenhagen Library) for the help with literature search in databases.
This work was supported by Dentsply Sirona in the form of a scholarship stipend.
REFERENCES
- Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg. 1969;3(2):81-100.
[Medline: 4924041] [doi: 10.3109/02844316909036699] - Kern JS, Kern T, Wolfart S, Heussen N. A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Feb;27(2):174-95.
[Medline: 25664612] [PMC free article: 5024059] [doi: 10.1111/clr.12531] - Buser D, Janner SF, Wittneben JG, Brägger U, Ramseier CA, Salvi GE. 10-year survival and success rates of 511 titanium implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched surface: a retrospective study in 303 partially edentulous patients.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Dec;14(6):839-51.
[Medline: 22897683] [doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00456.x] - Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of late oral implant loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Jul;19(7):670-6.
[Medline: 18492080] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01534.x] - Mozzati M, Gallesio G, Menicucci G, Manzella C, Tumedei M, Del Fabbro M. Dental Implants with a Calcium Ions-Modified Surface and Platelet Concentrates for the Rehabilitation of Medically Compromised Patients: A Retrospective Study with 5-Year Follow-Up. Materials (Basel). 2021 May 21;14(11):2718.
[Medline: 34064086] [PMC free article: 8196782] [doi: 10.3390/ma14112718] - Oczakir C, Balmer S, Mericske-Stern R. Implant-prosthodontic treatment for special care patients: a case series study. Int J Prosthodont. 2005 Sep-Oct;18(5):383-9.
[Medline: 16220802] - Petsinis V, Kamperos G, Alexandridi F, Alexandridis K. The impact of glucocorticosteroids administered for systemic diseases on the osseointegration and survival of dental implants placed without bone grafting-A retrospective study in 31 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2017 Aug;45(8):1197-1200.
[Medline: 28684069] [doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2017.05.023] - Fairweather D, Rose NR. Women and autoimmune diseases. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004 Nov;10(11):2005-11.
[Medline: 15550215] [PMC free article: 3328995] [doi: 10.3201/eid1011.040367] - Samuels H, Malov M, Saha Detroja T, Ben Zaken K, Bloch N, Gal-Tanamy M, Avni O, Polis B, Samson AO. Autoimmune Disease Classification Based on PubMed Text Mining. J Clin Med. 2022 Jul 26;11(15):4345.
[Medline: 35893435] [PMC free article: 9369164] [doi: 10.3390/jcm11154345] - Giat E, Ehrenfeld M, Shoenfeld Y. Cancer and autoimmune diseases. Autoimmun Rev. 2017 Oct;16(10):1049-1057.
[Medline: 28778707] [doi: 10.1016/j.autrev.2017.07.022] - Fridkis-Hareli M. Immunogenetic mechanisms for the coexistence of organ-specific and systemic autoimmune diseases. J Autoimmune Dis. 2008 Feb 15;5:1.
[Medline: 18275618] [PMC free article: 2265707] [doi: 10.1186/1740-2557-5-1] - Baglama Š, Trčko K, Rebol J, Miljković J. Oral manifestations of autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases.Acta Dermatovenerol Alp Pannonica Adriat. 2018 Mar;27(1):9-16.
[Medline: 29589639] [doi: 10.15570/actaapa.2018.3] - Akshat P, Mimansha P, Ved Prakash P; Ravindran V. Oral Manifestations of Autoimmune Connective Tissue Diseases. Indian Journal of Rheumatology. 2018 Dec;13(4):264-72. [doi: 10.4103/injr.injr_51_18]
- Isidor F, Brøndum K, Hansen HJ, Jensen J, Sindet-Pedersen S. Outcome of treatment with implant-retained dental prostheses in patients with Sjögren syndrome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Sep-Oct;14(5):736-43.
[Medline: 10531746] - Li P, Zheng Y, Chen X. Drugs for Autoimmune Inflammatory Diseases: From Small Molecule Compounds to Anti-TNF Biologics. Front Pharmacol. 2017 Jul 12;8:460.
[Medline: 28785220] [PMC free article: 5506195] [doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00460] - Hsu DC, Katelaris CH. Long-term management of patients taking immunosuppressive drugs. Aust Prescr. 2009 Jun;32(3):68-71.
[doi: 10.18773/austprescr.2009.035] - O'Neill ID, Scully C. Biologics in oral medicine: principles of use and practical considerations. Oral Dis. 2012 Sep;18(6):525-36.
[Medline: 22420757] [doi: 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2012.01919.x] - Henrickson SE, Ruffner MA, Kwan M. Unintended Immunological Consequences of Biologic Therapy. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep. 2016 Jun;16(6):46.
[Medline: 27324478] [PMC free article: 5481723] [doi: 10.1007/s11882-016-0624-7] - Parlakpinar H, Gunata M. Transplantation and immunosuppression: a review of novel transplant-related immunosuppressant drugs. Immunopharmacol Immunotoxicol. 2021 Dec;43(6):651-665.
[Medline: 34415233] [doi: 10.1080/08923973.2021.1966033] - Dinarello CA. Anti-inflammatory Agents: Present and Future. Cell. 2010 Mar 19;140(6):935-50.
[Medline: 20303881] [PMC free article: 3752337] [doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.043] - Maricic M. Update on glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2011 Aug;37(3):415-31, vi.
[Medline: 22023900] [doi: 10.1016/j.rdc.2011.07.003] - Epstein S. Immunosuppressant drugs and bone disease: a clinician's perspective. J Clin Densitom. 1998 Winter;1(4):317-21.
[Medline: 15304878] [doi: 10.1385/JCD:1:4:317] - Albrektsson T, Brånemark PI, Hansson HA, Lindström J. Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. Acta Orthop Scand. 1981;52(2):155-70.
[Medline: 7246093] [doi: 10.3109/17453678108991776] - Bertl K, Ebner M, Knibbe M, Pandis N, Kuchler U, Ulm C, Stavropoulos A. How old is old for implant therapy in terms of early implant losses? J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Dec;46(12):1282-1293.
[Medline: 31529723] [PMC free article: 6899847] [doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13199] - Aboushelib MN, Elsafi MH. Clinical Management Protocol for Dental Implants Inserted in Patients with Active Lichen Planus. J Prosthodont. 2017 Jan;26(1):29-33.
[Medline: 26916247] [doi: 10.1111/jopr.12379] - Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci. 1998 Feb;106(1):527-51.
[Medline: 9527353] [doi: 10.1046/j.0909-8836..t01-2-.x] - Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097.
[Medline: 19621072] [PMC free article: 2707599] [doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097] - Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012 Mar;91(3):242-8.
[Medline: 22157097] [doi: 10.1177/0022034511431252] - Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2000.
[URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp] - Altin N, Ergun S, Katz J, Sancakli E, Koray M, Tanyeri H. Implant-supported oral rehabilitation of a patient with pemphigus vulgaris: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2013 Oct;22(7):581-586.
[Medline: 23552022] [doi: 10.1111/jopr.12050] - Baptist BA. Fixed Implant Supported Rehabilitation of Partially Edentulous Posterior Maxilla in a Patient With Systemic Scleroderma: A Case Report. Implant Dent. 2016 Feb;25(1):155-9.
[Medline: 26671839] [doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000367] - Bayram YE, Eskan MA. A Fixed Reconstruction of Partially Edentulous Patient With Systemic Scleroderma: A 4.8-year Follow-Up Case Report. Clin Adv Periodontics. 2022 Sep;12(3):159-162.
[Medline: 34212516] [doi: 10.1002/cap.10174] - Bencharit S, Reside GJ, Howard-Williams EL. Complex prosthodontic treatment with dental implants for a patient with polymyalgia rheumatica: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Nov-Dec;25(6):1241-5.
[Medline: 21197503] - Binon PP. Thirteen-year follow-up of a mandibular implant-supported fixed complete denture in a patient with Sjogren's syndrome: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Nov;94(5):409-13.
[Medline: 16275299] [doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.09.010] - Cauble DA. Full-mouth rehabilitation of a patient with Crohn's disease. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2011 Mar;32(2):58-63.
[Medline: 21473301] - Cillo JE Jr, Barbosa N. Adalimumab-Related Dental Implant Infection. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Jun;77(6):1165-1169.
[Medline: 30794813] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2019.01.033] - Drew A, Bittner N, Florin W, Koch A. Prosthetically Driven Therapy for a Patient With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus and Common Variable Immunodeficiency: A Case Report. J Oral Implantol. 2018 Dec;44(6):447-455.
[Medline: 30036142] [doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00046] - Eder A, Watzek G. Treatment of a patient with severe osteoporosis and chronic polyarthritis with fixed implant-supported prosthesis: a case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999 Jul-Aug;14(4):587-90.
[Medline: 10453676] - Ella B, Lasserre JF, Blanchard JP, Fricain JC. A 4-year follow-up of two complete mandibular implant-supported removable prostheses in a patient with severe rheumatoid polyarthritis: case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.2011 Mar-Apr;26(2):e19-22.
[Medline: 21483874] - Ergun S, Katz J, Cifter ED, Koray M, Esen BA, Tanyeri H. Implant-supported oral rehabilitation of a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus: case report and review of the literature. Quintessence Int. 2010 Nov-Dec;41(10):863-7.
[Medline: 20927423] - Fu L, Liu Y, Zhou J, Zhou Y. Implant-Retained Overdenture for a Patient With Severe Lichen Planus: A Case Report With 3 Years' Follow-Up and a Systematic Review. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Jan;77(1):59-69.
[Medline: 30176217] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2018.07.031] - Garcés Villalá MA, Zorrilla Albert C. Limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis: Total rehabilitation with fixed prosthesis on dental implants. J Scleroderma Relat Disord. 2021 Oct;6(3):299-305.
[Medline: 35387213] [PMC free article: 8922661] [doi: 10.1177/23971983211004362] - Gaur V, Singh N, Doshi AG, Chandrahas B. Immediate rehabilitation of a rheumatoid arthritis patient with single-piece implants. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2021 May;82:105874.
[Medline: 33865199] [PMC free article: 8079275] [doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2021.105874] - Haas SE. Implant-supported, long-span fixed partial denture for a scleroderma patient: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Feb;87(2):136-9.
[Medline: 11854666] [doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.121825] - In 't Veld M, Schulten EAJM, Neveling U, Jan Jager DH, Leusink FKJ. A Novel Approach for Immediate Implant-Based Oral Rehabilitation in a Sjögren's Syndrome Patient Using Virtual Surgical and Prosthetic Planning. J Oral Implantol. 2022 Apr 1;48(2):139-146.
[Medline: 33690849] [doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-20-00420] - James M, Matani J, Shahdad S. Prosthetic Rehabilitation of a Patient Diagnosed With Sarcoidosis Using Dental Implants: A Clinical Case Report. J Oral Implantol. 2020 Jun 1;46(3):235-243.
[Medline: 32582920] [doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-18-00309] - Jensen J, Sindet-Pedersen S. Osseointegrated implants for prosthetic reconstruction in a patient with scleroderma: report of a case. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990 Jul;48(7):739-41.
[Medline: 2358953] [doi: 10.1016/0278-2391(90)90062-7] - Langer Y, Cardash HS, Tal H. Use of dental implants in the treatment of patients with scleroderma: a clinical report.J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Dec;68(6):873-5.
[Medline: 1494110] [doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90541-H] - Larrazabal-Morón C, Boronat-López A, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Oral rehabilitation with bone graft and simultaneous dental implants in a patient with epidermolysis bullosa: a clinical case report. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Jul;67(7):1499-502.
[Medline: 19531424] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.034] - Lee H, Al Mardini M, Ercoli C, Smith MN. Oral rehabilitation of a completely edentulous epidermolysis bullosa patient with an implant-supported prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Feb;97(2):65-9.
[Medline: 17341372] [doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.010] - Li L, Friedrich RE, Schmelzle R. Mandibular augmentation with vascularized fibula transplantation in a patient with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004 Apr;62(4):497-9.
[Medline: 15085520] [doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2003.08.022] - Martin-Cabezas R. Peri-implantitis management in a patient with erosive oral lichen planus. A case report. Clin Case Rep. 2020 Dec 5;9(2):718-724.
[Medline: 33598232] [PMC free article: 7869359] [doi: 10.1002/ccr3.3617] - Mori G, Kobayashi T, Ito T, Yajima Y. Implant-supported Prostheses in Patient with Sjögren's Syndrome: Clinical Report with 3-year Follow-up. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2018;59(3):201-206.
[Medline: 30224614] [doi: 10.2209/tdcpublication.2017-0036] - Muller F, Bergendal B, Wahlmann U, Wagner W. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in an edentulous patient with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Int J Prosthodont. 2010 Jan-Feb;23(1):42-8.
[Medline: 20234891] - Nam J, Janakievski J, Raigrodski AJ. Complete transition from failing restorations to implant-supported fixed prostheses in a patient with scleroderma. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012 Nov-Dec;33(10):746-56.
[Medline: 24964485] - Oliveira MA, Ortega KL, Martins FM, Maluf PS, Magalhães MG. Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa--oral rehabilitation using stereolithography and immediate endosseous implants. Spec Care Dentist. 2010 Jan-Feb;30(1):23-6.
[Medline: 20051071] [doi: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.2009.00117.x] - Patel K, Welfare R, Coonar HS. The provision of dental implants and a fixed prosthesis in the treatment of a patient with scleroderma: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Jun;79(6):611-2.
[Medline: 9627886] [doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70064-2] - Peron C, Javed F, Romanos GE. Immediate Loading of Tantalum-Based Implants in Fresh Extraction Sockets in Patient With Sjogren Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review. Implant Dent. 2017 Aug;26(4):634-638.
[Medline: 28541269] [doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000594] - Raviv E, Harel-Raviv M, Shatz P, Gornitsky M. Implant-supported overdenture rehabilitation and progressive systemic sclerosis. Int J Prosthodont. 1996 Sep-Oct;9(5):440-4. Erratum in: Int J Prosthodont 1997 Sep-Oct;10(5):484.
[Medline: 9108744] - Smojver I, Katalinić I, Vuletić M, Stojić L, Gerbl D, Gabrić D. Guided Bilateral Transcanine Implant Placement and Implant-Supported Oral Rehabilitation in a Patient with Progressive Systemic Scleroderma. Case Rep Dent.2021 Jul 13;2021:5576595.
[Medline: 34336307] [PMC free article: 8298149] [doi: 10.1155/2021/5576595] - Spinato S, Soardi CM, Zane AM. A mandibular implant-supported fixed complete dental prosthesis in a patient with Sjogren syndrome: case report. Implant Dent. 2010 Jun;19(3):178-83.
[Medline: 20523173] [doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181dbe081] - Zigdon H, Gutmacher Z, Teich S, Levin L. Full-mouth rehabilitation using dental implants in a patient with scleroderma. Quintessence Int. 2011 Oct;42(9):781-5.
[Medline: 21909503] - Alikhasi M, Sharifi R, Falahchai SM. Combined Digital/Conventional Technique for Rehabilitation of a Patient With Epidermolysis Bullosa: A Case Letter. J Oral Implantol. 2017 Oct;43(5):387-391.
[Medline: 28777697] [doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00103] - Letelier MG, Jara CC, Peñarrocha-Oltra S, Gomar-Vercher S, Diago MP. Fixed Implant-Supported Full-Arch Prosthesis in Epidermolysis Bullosa With Severe Symptoms. J Oral Implantol. 2016 Dec;42(6):498-505.
[Medline: 27669106] [doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00104] - Chochlidakis K, Ercoli C, Elad S. Challenges in implant-supported dental treatment in patients with Sjogren's syndrome: A case report and literature review. Quintessence Int. 2016;47(6):515-24.
[Medline: 27092358] [doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a36009] - de Mendonça Invernici M, Finger Stadler A, Vale Nicolau G, Naval Machado MÂ, Soares de Lima AA, Compagnoni Martins M. Management of Sjogren's Syndrome Patient: A Case Report of Prosthetic Rehabilitation with 6-Year Follow-Up. Case Rep Dent. 2014;2014:761251.
[Medline: 25478245] [PMC free article: 4247972] [doi: 10.1155/2014/761251] - Alsaadi G, Quirynen M, Michiles K, Teughels W, Komárek A, van Steenberghe D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J Clin Periodontol.2008 Jan;35(1):51-7.
[Medline: 18034851] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01165.x] - Anitua E, Piñas L, Escuer-Artero V, Fernández RS, Alkhraisat MH. Short dental implants in patients with oral lichen planus: a long-term follow-up. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018 Apr;56(3):216-220.
[Medline: 29502938] [doi: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.02.003] - Czerninski R, Eliezer M, Wilensky A, Soskolne A. Oral lichen planus and dental implants--a retrospective study.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Apr;15(2):234-42.
[Medline: 21599828] [doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00347.x] - Hasanoglu Erbasar GN, Hocaoğlu TP, Erbasar RC. Risk factors associated with short dental implant success: a long-term retrospective evaluation of patients followed up for up to 9 years. Braz Oral Res. 2019;33:e030.
[Medline: 30994707] [doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0030] - Krennmair G, Seemann R, Piehslinger E. Dental implants in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: clinical outcome and peri-implant findings. J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Oct;37(10):928-36.
[Medline: 20718894] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01606.x] - Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Agustín-Panadero R, Serra-Pastor B, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Oral rehabilitation with dental implants in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: A retrospective study with 2-15 years of follow-up. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020 Mar 1;25(2):e262-e267.
[Medline: 31967984] [PMC free article: 7103452] [doi: 10.4317/medoral.23331] - Siddiqui Z, Wang Y, Makkad P, Thyvalikakath T. Characterizing Restorative Dental Treatments of Sjögren's Syndrome Patients Using Electronic Dental Records Data. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:1166-1169.
[Medline: 29295286] - van Steenberghe D, Jacobs R, Desnyder M, Maffei G, Quirynen M. The relative impact of local and endogenous patient-related factors on implant failure up to the abutment stage. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Dec;13(6):617-22.
[Medline: 12519336] [doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130607.x] - Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Gonçalves Y, Lopes A. Long-Term Outcome of Implant Rehabilitations in Patients with Systemic Disorders and Smoking Habits: A Retrospective Clinical Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res.2016 Aug;18(4):649-65.
[Medline: 25879920] [doi: 10.1111/cid.12346] - Nicoli LG, Oliveira GJPL, Lopes BMV, Marcantonio C, Zandim-Barcelos DL, Marcantonio E Jr. Survival/Success of Dental Implants with Acid-Etched Surfaces: A Retrospective Evaluation After 8 to 10 Years. Braz Dent J.2017 May-Jun;28(3):330-336.
[Medline: 29297554] [doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201601471] - Agustín-Panadero R, Serra-Pastor B, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Ferreiroa A, Peñarrocha-Diago M. Digital scanning for implant-supported fixed complete-arch dental prostheses for patients with epidermolysis bullosa: A case series evaluation. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Oct;122(4):364-370.
[Medline: 31079885] [doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.019] - Chatzistavrianou D, Shahdad S. Implant Treatment in Patients with Sjogren's Syndrome: A Review of the Literature and Two Clinical Case Reports. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2016 Mar;24(1):40-6.
[Medline: 27039478] - Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Wennerberg A. Dental implants in patients with Sjögren's syndrome: a case series and a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019 Sep;48(9):1250-1259.
[Medline: 30827571] [doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.02.005] - Esposito SJ, Camisa C, Morgan M. Implant retained overdentures for two patients with severe lichen planus: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jan;89(1):6-10.
[Medline: 12589278] [doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.14] - Payne AG, Lownie JF, Van Der Linden WJ. Implant-supported prostheses in patients with Sjögren's syndrome: a clinical report on three patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Sep-Oct;12(5):679-85.
[Medline: 9337031] - Reichart PA. Oral lichen planus and dental implants. Report of 3 cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006 Mar;35(3):237-40.
[Medline: 16423503] [doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2005.08.011] - Corigliano M, Re M, Cipollina A, Crescentini F, Docaj D, Baldoni E. The implant treatment of two patients suffering from Sjogren's syndrome with multifactorial regenerative protocol. European Scientific Journal. Eur Sci J. 2014 Jan;10(3).
[URL: https://eujournal.org/index.php/esj/article/view/2608/2469] - Alenazi A. Association between rheumatoid factors and proinflammatory biomarkers with implant health in rheumatoid arthritis patients with dental implants. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021 Nov;25(22):7014-7021.
[Medline: 34859864] [doi: 10.26355/eurrev_202111_27251] - Hernández G, Lopez-Pintor RM, Arriba L, Torres J, de Vicente JC. Implant treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: a prospective-controlled study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Jun;23(6):726-732.
[Medline: 21492237] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02192.x] - Khamis AK, Aboushelib MN, Helal MH. Clinical Management Protocol for Dental Implants Inserted in Patients with Active Lichen Planus. Part II 4-Year Follow-Up. J Prosthodont. 2019 Jun;28(5):519-525.
[Medline: 30357978] [doi: 10.1111/jopr.12993] - Korfage A, Raghoebar GM, Arends S, Meiners PM, Visser A, Kroese FG, Bootsma H, Vissink A. Dental Implants in Patients with Sjögren's Syndrome. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Oct;18(5):937-945.
[Medline: 26399938] [doi: 10.1111/cid.12376] - López-Jornet P, Camacho-Alonso F, Sánchez-Siles M. Dental implants in patients with oral lichen planus: a cross-sectional study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014 Feb;16(1):107-15.
[Medline: 24533567] [doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2012.00455.x] - Attard NJ, Zarb GA. A study of dental implants in medically treated hypothyroid patients. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4(4):220-31.
[Medline: 12685797] [doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2002.tb00174.x] - Slade GD, Spencer AJ. Development and evaluation of the Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Health.1994 Mar;11(1):3-11.
[Medline: 8193981] - Simon TA, Kawabata H, Ray N, Baheti A, Suissa S, Esdaile JM. Prevalence of Co-existing Autoimmune Disease in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Cross-Sectional Study. Adv Ther. 2017 Nov;34(11):2481-2490.
[Medline: 29067557] [PMC free article: 5702376] [doi: 10.1007/s12325-017-0627-3] - Simon TA, Harikrishnan GP, Kawabata H, Singhal S, Brunner HI, Lovell DJ. Prevalence of co-existing autoimmune disease in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a cross-sectional study. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2020 Jun 5;18(1):43.
[Medline: 32503658] [PMC free article: 7275412] [doi: 10.1186/s12969-020-00426-9] - Jacobson DL, Gange SJ, Rose NR, Graham NM. Epidemiology and estimated population burden of selected autoimmune diseases in the United States. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1997 Sep;84(3):223-43.
[Medline: 9281381] [doi: 10.1006/clin.1997.4412] - Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Factors Influencing Early Dental Implant Failures. J Dent Res. 2016 Aug;95(9):995-1002.
[Medline: 27146701] [doi: 10.1177/0022034516646098] - Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:22-38.
[Medline: 23062125] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x] - Mombelli A, Müller N, Cionca N. The epidemiology of peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:67-76.
[Medline: 23062130] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02541.x] - Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct;23 Suppl 6:2-21.
[Medline: 23062124] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x] - Gabriel SE, Michaud K. Epidemiological studies in incidence, prevalence, mortality, and comorbidity of the rheumatic diseases. Arthritis Res Ther. 2009;11(3):229.
[Medline: 19519924] [PMC free article: 2714099] [doi: 10.1186/ar2669] - Bordy R, Totoson P, Prati C, Marie C, Wendling D, Demougeot C. Microvascular endothelial dysfunction in rheumatoid arthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2018 Jul;14(7):404-420.
[Medline: 29855620] [doi: 10.1038/s41584-018-0022-8] - Bonetti PO, Lerman LO, Lerman A. Endothelial dysfunction: a marker of atherosclerotic risk. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2003 Feb 1;23(2):168-75.
[Medline: 12588755] [doi: 10.1161/01.ATV.0000051384.43104.FC] - Weinstein RS. Glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and osteonecrosis. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2012 Sep;41(3):595-611.
[Medline: 22877431] [PMC free article: 3417039] [doi: 10.1016/j.ecl.2012.04.004] - Diz P, Scully C, Sanz M. Dental implants in the medically compromised patient. J Dent. 2013 Mar;41(3):195-206.
[Medline: 23313715] [doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.12.008] - Chiang CP, Yu-Fong Chang J, Wang YP, Wu YH, Lu SY, Sun A. Oral lichen planus - Differential diagnoses, serum autoantibodies, hematinic deficiencies, and management. J Formos Med Assoc. 2018 Sep;117(9):756-765.
[Medline: 29472048] [doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.01.021] - Reichart PA, Schmidt-Westhausen AM, Khongkhunthian P, Strietzel FP. Dental implants in patients with oral mucosal diseases - a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2016 May;43(5):388-99.
[Medline: 26685871] [doi: 10.1111/joor.12373] - Krämer S, Lucas J, Gamboa F, Peñarrocha Diago M, Peñarrocha Oltra D, Guzmán-Letelier M, Paul S, Molina G, Sepúlveda L, Araya I, Soto R, Arriagada C, Lucky AW, Mellerio JE, Cornwall R, Alsayer F, Schilke R, Antal MA, Castrillón F, Paredes C, Serrano MC, Clark V. Clinical practice guidelines: Oral health care for children and adults living with epidermolysis bullosa. Spec Care Dentist. 2020 Nov;40 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):3-81.
[Medline: 33202040] [PMC free article: 7756753] [doi: 10.1111/scd.12511] - Bardhan A, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Chapple ILC, Fine JD, Harper N, Has C, Magin TM, Marinkovich MP, Marshall JF, McGrath JA, Mellerio JE, Polson R, Heagerty AH. Epidermolysis bullosa. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020 Sep 24;6(1):78.
[Medline: 32973163] [doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-0210-0] - Krämer SM, Serrano MC, Zillmann G, Gálvez P, Araya I, Yanine N, Carrasco-Labra A, Oliva P, Brignardello-Petersen R, Villanueva J; DEBRA International. Oral health care for patients with epidermolysis bullosa--best clinical practice guidelines. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2012 Sep;22 Suppl 1:1-35.
[Medline: 22937908] [doi: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2012.01247.x] - Azizkhan RG, Stehr W, Cohen AP, Wittkugel E, Farrell MK, Lucky AW, Hammelman BD, Johnson ND, Racadio JM. Esophageal strictures in children with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: an 11-year experience with fluoroscopically guided balloon dilatation. J Pediatr Surg. 2006 Jan;41(1):55-60; discussion 55-60.
[Medline: 16410108] [doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.10.007] - Leal SC, Lia EN, Amorim R, Dos Santos MV, de Araújo MC, de Medeiros RA, da Fonseca CA. Higher Dental Caries Prevalence and Its Association with Dietary Habits and Physical Limitation in Epidermolysis Bullosa Patients: A Case Control Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 Mar 1;17(3):211-6.
[Medline: 27207200] [doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1829] - Torres CP, Gomes-Silva JM, Mellara TS, Carvalho LP, Borsatto MC. Dental care management in a child with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(6):511-6.
[Medline: 22189648] [doi: 10.1590/S0103-64402011000600012] - Ferreli C, Gasparini G, Parodi A, Cozzani E, Rongioletti F, Atzori L. Cutaneous Manifestations of Scleroderma and Scleroderma-Like Disorders: a Comprehensive Review. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2017 Dec;53(3):306-336.
[Medline: 28712039] [doi: 10.1007/s12016-017-8625-4] - Rosenblum MD, Remedios KA, Abbas AK. Mechanisms of human autoimmunity. J Clin Invest. 2015 Jun;125(6):2228-33.
[Medline: 25893595] [PMC free article: 4518692] [doi: 10.1172/JCI78088] - Dalury DF. Cementless total knee arthroplasty: current concepts review. Bone Joint J. 2016 Jul;98-B(7):867-73.
[Medline: 27365463] [doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.98B7.37367] - Patel N, Gwam CU, Khlopas A, Sodhi N, Sultan AA, Navarro SM, Ramkumar PN, Harwin SF, Mont MA. Outcomes of Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis. Orthopedics. 2018 Mar 1;41(2):103-106.
[Medline: 29377055] [doi: 10.3928/01477447-20180123-05] - Woo YK, Kim KW, Chung JW, Lee HS. Average 10.1-year follow-up of cementless total knee arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Can J Surg. 2011 Jun;54(3):179-84.
[Medline: 21609517] [PMC free article: 3104315] [doi: 10.1503/cjs.000910] - Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990 Dec;1(1):33-40.
[Medline: 2099210] [doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1990.010105.x] - Karoussis IK, Brägger U, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Lang NP. Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Feb;15(1):8-17.
[Medline: 14731173] [doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00983.x] - Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Consensus report: towards optimized treatment outcomes for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Dec;80(6):641.
[Medline: 9830066] [doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70048-4] - Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986 Summer;1(1):11-25.
[Medline: 3527955]
To cite this article: Survival and Success of Dental Implants in Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: a Systematic Review J Oral Maxillofac Res 2024;15(1):e1 URL: http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2024/1/e1/v15n1e1ht.htm |
Received: 7 February 2024 | Accepted: 31 March 2024 | Published: 31 March 2024
Copyright: © The Author(s). Published by JOMR under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, 2024.