Next Article in Journal
Dietary Assessment and Self-Management Using Information Technology in Order to Improve Outcomes in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Previous Article in Journal
Transplant Drugs against SARS, MERS and COVID-19
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Transplantology
Volume 1
Issue 2
10.3390/transplantology1020008
transplantology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Marcela Paraizo
1,†,
João Botelho
1,2,3,†,
Vanessa Machado
1,2,3,
José João Mendes
1,3,
Ricardo Alves
1,2,
Paulo Mascarenhas
1,3,* and
José Maria Cardoso
2
1
Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Instituto Universitário Egas Moniz, 2829-511 Caparica, Portugal
2
Periodontology Department, Clinical Research Unit (CRU), CiiEM, Egas Moniz—Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, CRL, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal
3
Evidence-Based Hub, CiiEM, Egas Moniz—Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, CRL, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Marcela Paraizo and João Botelho are equally first authors.
Transplantology 2020, 1(2), 85-96; https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology1020008
Submission received: 17 September 2020 / Revised: 2 October 2020 / Accepted: 5 October 2020 / Published: 10 October 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This systematic review investigates the failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in patients undergoing solid-organ transplant (SOT) compared to healthy controls. Three databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42019124896). Case-control and cohort studies reporting data failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in SOT patients were included. The risk of bias of observational studies was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Four case-control studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria; all had low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed consistently lower implant failure rate than control populations at patient and implant levels. SOT patients had a significant difference of −18% (p-value < 0.001) MBL compared to healthy patients. SOT status poses no serious threat to implant survival. Overall, this group of patients presented lower levels of dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss compared to otherwise healthy patients. Further intervention trials with larger sample size and longer follow-ups are necessary to confirm these summarized results.

1. Introduction

Dental implants restore missing teeth, in both partially and fully edentulous patients [1,2,3]. Further, implants have consistent long-term success, with high survival rates and significant improvements in the patient’s function, aesthetics, and quality of life [4,5].
It is, however, unclear what the impact of systemic diseases is on the outcome of implant therapy and whether medically compromised patients may have different success and survival rates [6,7]. Systemic diseases and medications may directly affect oral tissues, either by increasing the susceptibility to infections or by interfering with wound healing or bone metabolism, which may directly influence implant osseointegration and result in early or late implant failures [8,9].
The replacement of a damaged organ by a healthy organ has been one of the most extraordinary medical achievements ever achieved [10,11]. According to the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplant (GODT), the number of solid organ transplants (SOT) increased 7.5% in 2016 [12]. According to GODT, in 2017, more than 139 thousand organ transplants were performed, corresponding to 16 organ transplants per hour. To prevent organ rejection, these patients undergo a chronic regimen of immunosuppressants, which puts them at higher risk of infections and inflammation [13,14,15,16]. In patients taking these medications, there is evidence that wound healing and bone metabolism may be impaired, due to either inhibition of osteoblast function and osteogenesis or to a concomitant increase of bone resorption and osteoporosis, which may result in decreased bone-to-implant contact [17,18,19,20]. In addition, these patients also often take concomitant systemic steroid medication, which can also cause wound healing alteration and opportunistic colonisation by oral pathogens [10,21].
Overall medical improvements have contributed to high standards of quality of life in SOT patients, and hence, it is very common that these patients seek dental implant therapy once recovered from the surgical procedure [10,11]. Nevertheless, we bear in mind that dental implant therapy may pose a risk to the development of peri-implantitis, an inflammatory infection around the implant caused by dental plaque accumulation. [22] This accumulation may serve as reservoir for several types of microbials that can possibly trigger infectious reactions in SOT patients [23,24]. Additionally, SOT patients are at more risk to life-threatening infections or malignancies, and these may precipitate with increased morbidity and mortality, adverse effects on the graft functioning, or survival [25].
Evidence on the outcome of implant therapy in SOT patients is scarce [4], mostly reported in cases of liver transplant patients [8,26]. There are some prospective controlled studies evaluating dental implants in these patients [27], liver transplant patients [28], in a combined sample of heart and liver transplant patients, and in renal transplant patients [29]. These publications have reported successful outcomes of implant therapy in SOT individuals; however, the existing evidence on the long-term outcome of implant therapy in large samples of these populations is scarce.
Therefore, the aim of this review was to evaluate the failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in SOT patients compared to healthy controls.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Protocol and Registration

This review was submitted to the National Institute for Health Research PROSPERO, International Prospective Register of Systematic Review database (ID number: CRD42019124896). We planned this review under the PRISMA statement (Table S1 in Supplementary Materials) [30].

2.2. Focus Question and Eligibility Criteria

We set the following research question: “In adults, do dental implants placed in solid-organ transplanted individuals have comparable survival rates to systemically healthy individuals?” with the following PICO:
  • P (Population): Solid-organ transplanted adult humans (≥18 years old).
  • I (Intervention): Dental implant placement.
  • C (Comparator): Adult healthy controls.
  • O (Outcome): Implant failure rate and marginal bone loss.
To address this PICO question, the following inclusion criteria were applied:
  • Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs (retrospective and prospective case-control and cohort studies)
  • Studies reporting implant survival, or otherwise failure, in transplanted patients, with or without non-transplanted patients as reference
  • Studies reporting marginal bone loss data
  • Defined SOT patients
  • Studies reporting follow-up period of placed dental implants
  • Studies with follow-ups of at least 6 months after placement of the dental implant.
As exclusion criteria, we defined: Studies with patients with necessary bone graft and/or guided bone regeneration procedures, and patients undergoing radiation treatment of the head and neck.
There were no restrictions concerning race, origin, year of publication, or language. Only published, peer-reviewed journal articles were considered eligible.

2.3. Search Strategy

We conducted a computerized literature search using the electronic databases of PubMed, Web of Sciences, and the Cochrane Library from the earliest data available until June 2020. We merged keywords and subject headings in accordance with the thesaurus of each database and applied exploded subject headings. The following syntax was made to conduct a search in PubMed: (“dental implants”) AND (“survival rate” OR survival OR “marginal bone loss” OR “marginal loss” OR “bone loss”) AND (transplantation OR “organ transplantation” OR “transplantation, organ” OR “tissue transplantation” OR “transplantation, tissue” OR “heart transplantation” OR “kidney transplantation” OR “liver transplantation” OR “lung transplantation” OR “pancreas transplantation”). Additional relevant literature was included after a manual search across the selected articles’ reference lists.
There were no restrictions other than the search terms.

2.4. Study Process

Two independent investigators (M.P. and P.M.) examined the title and abstract of available studies for the first inclusion phase. We resolved disagreement through a third reviewer (J.B.). The final selection of the studies was carried out independently by the authors, who reviewed the full text of the selected papers according to the inclusion criteria mentioned above.
A predefined table was created to extract essential data from each eligible article, including the first author’s name, study design, publication year, inclusion/exclusion criteria, number of participants, and rationale for failure. Clinical implant measures included implant failure rate and marginal bone loss. All data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The authors were contacted when necessary for additional data clarification.

2.5. Risk of Bias (RoB) in Individual Studies

Methodological quality was independently performed by two calibrated authors (V.M. and J.B.) using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for cohort studies. Regarding this tool, we scored across three categories: Studies with 7–9 stars as of low RoB, studies with 5–6 stars as of moderate RoB, whilst studies with fewer than 5 stars were deemed of high RoB. Any doubt was resolved by discussion with a third author.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in R version 3.4.1 (R Studio Team 2018). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and mean ratios (MR) calculations, including confidence intervals and plots, were calculated through the metafor R package with control data as a reference (denominator). Meta-analysis procedures followed Random-effects Restricted Maximum Likelihood models with log transformed data. Overall results were displayed in exponentially back transformed data forest plots. Due to the reduced number of studies selected for the quantitative synthesis, sensitivity and publication bias analysis were skipped. Heterogeneity was evaluated by means of the I2 index. Assumption of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of Included Studies

The search strategy identified a total of 970 possibly relevant articles. After duplicates removal, 947 papers were judged against the eligibility criteria and 867 were excluded. Out of eight papers, four were further excluded with reasons (Table S2), and a total of four case-control studies were included for quantitative and qualitative synthesis (Figure 1; Table 1). Inter-examiner reliability was considered as excellent (kappa score = 0.9754, 95% CI: 0.9656–0.9852).

3.2. Risk of Bias (RoB) in Individual Studies

All cohort studies presented low RoB, with two with 9/9 and four with 7/9 scores (Table 2). The main reason for bias arose from the representativeness of the cases (33.3%, n = 2) and controls (50.0%, n = 3). In the ascertainment of exposure, this involved demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study, comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis, usability of the same method of ascertainment for cases and controls, and adequate follow-up.

3.3. Synthesis of Results

3.3.1. Implant Failure Rate

To investigate the likelihood of failure rate, four studies were selected to synthesize estimates for implants (Figure 2) and patients’ prospects (Figure 3). Implant failure was perceived as a very rare event in both SOT and healthy populations. For the implant view, SOT patients presented, on average, consistently lower implant failure rate than control populations (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.52, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.09–2.99). The level of heterogeneity was considered to be residual (I2 = 0%; Figure 2).
In terms of patient analysis, SOT populations presented half of the overall implant failure rate of healthy controls (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.50, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.09–2.86), with high consistency (I2 = 0%; Figure 3).

3.3.2. Marginal Bone Loss

Regarding the assessment of MBL of implants, SOT patients had a significant difference of −18% (p-value < 0.001) of MBL towards healthy patients (Ratio of Means 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71–0.95). Overall, this outcome resulted from a very homogeneous synthesis (I2 = 0%; Figure 4).

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of Main Findings

This systematic review provides a comprehensive assessment of implant failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in SOT patients compared with otherwise healthy individuals. The quantitative analysis provided by case-control studies revealed that SOT patients had lower incidence of implant failures and marginal bone loss than control patients. Nevertheless, these implant clinical shortcomings were collectively seen as rare events and are consistent with previous reviews [33,34].
Our results are novel as, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to provide concrete evidence on the dental implant success characteristics in SOT patients. A previous systematic review on immune compromised patients reported a dental implant success of 100% in SOT patients [35]; however, this result accounted for case reports, which is highly discouraged [36]. In addition, the number of SOT cases is expected to increase globally in the years to come [12] and, therefore, implantology care in SOT cases will become more standard in daily practice.
When compared to healthy patients, the lower rates of dental implant failure and MBL in SOT patients are intriguing. Although far from being completely understood, we might hypothesize that the health preoccupation of SOT patients might contribute to maintaining healthier states, as any health complication can have serious consequences. On the other hand, we might have to consider a possible biological reason for these failure rate differences, for example, the chronic use of immunosuppressors. However, this urges clarification in future studies.
Nevertheless, the obtained implant failure results differences between SOT and control patients were not significant (p > 0.05), and chance may have had a role here, probably due to implant failure being a very rare event in the studied conditions and the limited sample size from the selected studies. Furthermore, in a previous meta-analysis in immunocompromised patients, no significant effect of Immunosuppressant therapy was found on implant survival [35].
Despite that there were no differences between SOT with control patients, we emphasize that SOT presents high prevalence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) co-infections, increasing morbidity and mortality [37]. Remarkably, herpesviruses like CMV or EBV were recently associated to be in higher frequency in peri-implantitis lesions [38], which may result in the clinical failure of the implant. Beyond the implant success, we should be aware that peri-implantitis pockets may be a reservoir for herpesviruses to enter into the bloodstream via an ulcerated epithelium. Therefore, these local infections may constitute a risk for the SOT patient. However, this is merely speculative and should be clarified in future research. Above all, the clinical management of implants in SOT should always follow a rigorous and tight follow-up regimen to secure always states of health and prevent potential deleterious consequences.
Regarding MBL, it has been known from studies in immunosuppressed animal models that this condition apparently does not disturb bone density and implant osseointegration [39,40].

4.2. Quality of the Evidence, Limitations, and Potential Biases in the Review Process

Drawing parallels with available reviews, some comparable populations are immunocompromised patients (HIV, chemotherapy, and autoimmune diseases, for instance), given the consequences of the long-lasting post-transplant medications [35,41]. Under this assumption, dental implant survival was found to be very high in immunocompromised patients [35]. Additionally, HIV infection is recognized as a non-serious threat to implant survival on short-term evaluation [35,41].
No significant effect of immunocompromised conditions on implant survival was detectable. Implant-based therapy in immunocompromised patients should not aggravate the general morbidity and must not interfere in life-saving therapies. Careful risk stratification prior to implant therapy is fundamental. To further decipher the role of immunosuppression on dental implantology, more data from controlled and randomized studies are needed.
In respect to the type of transplant recipients included in this study, several types of transplants were included, two on liver [27], one on renal [28], and two with mixed transplant types [31,32]. Overall, these results account for the most prevalent types (renal and liver transplantation) (WHO, 2016), but also the infrequent cases.
Despite the comprehensive protocol conducted in this review to appraise all evidence on dental implant failure rate and MBL in SOT populations, some limitations should be discussed. The number of available articles was small, and none of the included studies presented intervention designs. Future studies should consider intervention designs and longer follow-ups to further confirm our results. Further, the rationale used to categorize implant failure was very dissimilar, although it was not reflected in the levels of heterogeneity. Thus, future studies should employ up-to-date case definitions [42], as well as more detailed clinical data. However, the shortage in available studies precluded additional tests in biological surrogates comparison, for instance cytokines, as they were previously reported as increased in SOT patients [16] and publication bias inspection.
Notwithstanding, several strengths are worth mentioning. The residual level of heterogeneity observed in the reported estimates and the strict protocol endorse the validity of quantitative analyses. In addition, studies were carried out both in hospital and private-practice settings, which allows for generalized conclusions.

5. Conclusions

Solid-organ transplant patients pose no serious threat to implant survival. Overall, this group of patients presented lower levels of dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss compared to otherwise healthy patients. Further intervention trials with larger sample size and longer follow-ups are necessary to confirm these summary results.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2673-3943/1/2/8/s1, Table S1: PRISMA 2009 Checklist, Table S2: List of potentially relevant studies not included in the systematic review, along with the reasons for exclusion.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.B., V.M., P.M.; methodology, J.B., V.M., P.M.; software, P.M.; validation, J.B., V.M., P.M.; formal analysis, M.P., P.M.; investigation, J.B., V.M., P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P., J.B., V.M., J.J.M., R.A., P.M., J.M.C.; writing—review and editing, M.P., J.B., V.M., J.J.M., R.A., P.M., J.M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is financed by national funds through the FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology, I.P., under the project UIDB/04585/2020.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Jung, R.E.; Zembic, A.; Pjetursson, B.E.; Zwahlen, M.; Thoma, D.S. 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 Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Pjetursson, B.E.; 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 Implant. Res. 2012, 23, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hjalmarsson, L.; Gheisarifar, M.; Jemt, T. A systematic review of survival of single implants as presented in longitudinal studies with a follow-up of at least 10 years. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2016, 9, S155–S162. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  4. Bornstein, M.M.; Cionca, N.; Mombelli, A. Systemic conditions and treatments as risks for implant therapy. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2009, 24, 12–27. [Google Scholar]
  5. Roos-Jansaker, A.-M.; Lindahl, C.; Renvert, H.; Renvert, S. Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part II: Presence of peri-implant lesions. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2006, 33, 290–295. [Google Scholar]
  6. Diz, P.; Scully, C.; Sanz, M. Dental implants in the medically compromised patient. J. Dent. 2013, 41, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Scully, C.; Hobkirk, J.; Dios, P.D. Dental endosseous implants in the medically compromised patient. J. Oral Rehabil. 2007, 34, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Heckmann, S.M.; Heckmann, J.G.; Linke, J.J.; Hohenberger, W.; Mombelli, A. Implant Therapy Following Liver Transplantation: Clinical and Microbiological Results After 10 Years. J. Periodontol. 2004, 75, 909–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mombelli, A.; Cionca, N. Systemic diseases affecting osseointegration therapy. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2006, 17, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guggenheimer, J.; Eghtesad, B.; Stock, D.J. Dental management of the (solid) organ transplant patient. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontology 2003, 95, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Hernández, G.; Jiménez, C.; Arriba, L.; Moreno, E.; Lucas, M. Resolution of oral ulcerations after decreasing the dosage of tacrolimus in a liver transplantation recipient. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endodontol. 2001, 92, 526–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. GODT 2016. Available online: http://www.transplant-observatory.org/download/2016-activity-data-report/ (accessed on 2 June 2020).
  13. Kritikos, A.; Manuel, O. Bloodstream infections after solid-organ transplantation. Virulence 2016, 7, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Fishman, J.A. Infection in Organ Transplantation. Am. J. Transpl. 2017, 17, 856–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Kassebaum, N.J.; Bernabé, E.; Dahiya, M.; Bhandari, B.; Murray, C.J.L.; Marcenes, W. Global Burden of Severe Periodontitis in 1990–2010. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 1045–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Machado, V.; Botelho, J.; Lopes, J.; Patrão, M.; Alves, R.; Chambrone, L.; Alcoforado, G.; Mendes, J.J. Periodontitis impact in interleukin-6 serum levels in solid organ transplanted patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diagnostics 2020, 10, 184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. De Molon, R.S.; Sakakura, C.E.; Faeda, R.S.; Sartori, R.; Palhares, D.; Margonar, R.; Marcantonio, E. Effect of the long-term administration of Cyclosporine A on bone healing around osseointegrated titanium implants: A histomorphometric study in the rabbit tibia. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2017, 80, 1000–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Duarte, P.M.; Filho, G.R.N.; Sallum, E.A.; de Toledo, S.; Sallum, A.W.; Nociti, F.H. The Effect of an Immunosuppressive Therapy and Its Withdrawal on Bone Healing Around Titanium Implants. A Histometric Study in Rabbits. J. Periodontol. 2001, 72, 1391–1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sakakura, C.E.; Margonar, R.; Holzhausen, M.; Nociti, F.H.; Alba, R.C.; Marcantonio, E. Influence of Cyclosporin A Therapy on Bone Healing Around Titanium Implants: A Histometric and Biomechanic Study in Rabbits. J. Periodontol. 2003, 74, 976–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sakakura, C.E.; Margonar, R.; Sartori, R.; Morais, J.A.N.D.; Marcantonio, E. The Influence of Cyclosporin A on Mechanical Retention of Dental Implants Previously Integrated to the Bone: A Study in Rabbits. J. Periodontol. 2006, 77, 2059–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. López-Pintor, R.M.; Hernández, G.; de Arriba, L.; de Andrés, A. Lip cancer in renal transplant patients. Oral Oncol. 2011, 47, 68–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Renvert, S.; Persson, G.R.; Pirih, F.Q.; Camargo, P.M. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2018, 45, S278–S285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Patini, R.; Staderini, E.; Lajolo, C.; Lopetuso, L.; Mohammed, H.; Rimondini, L.; Rocchetti, V.; Franceschi, F.; Cordaro, M.; Gallenzi, P. Relationship between oral microbiota and periodontal disease: A systematic review. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2018, 22, 5775–5788. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Staderini, E.; Patini, R.; Guglielmi, F.; Camodeca, A.; Gallenzi, P. How to Manage Impacted Third Molars: Germectomy or Delayed Removal? A Systematic Literature Review. Med. (B. Aires) 2019, 55, 79. [Google Scholar]
  25. Cajanding, R. Immunosuppression following organ transplantation. Part 2: Complications and their management. Br. J. Nurs. 2018, 27, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gu, L.; Yu, Y.C. Clinical outcome of dental implants placed in liver transplant recipients after 3 years: A case series. Transplant. Proc. 2011, 43, 2678–2682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Paredes, V.; López-Pintor, R.M.; Torres, J.; de Vicente, J.C.; Sanz, M.; Hernández, G. Implant treatment in pharmacologically immunosuppressed liver transplant patients: A prospective-controlled study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Hernández, G.; Paredes, V.; López-Pintor, R.M.; de Andrés, A.; de Vicente, J.C.; Sanz, M. Implant treatment in immunosuppressed renal transplant patients: A prospective case-controlled study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019, 30, 524–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Montebugnoli, L.; Venturi, M.; Cervellati, F. Bone response to submerged implants in organ transplant patients: A prospective controlled study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2012, 27, 1494–1500. [Google Scholar]
  30. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Radzewski, R.; Osmola, K. The use of dental implants in organ transplant patients undergoing immunosuppressive therapy: An overview of publications. Implant Dent. 2016, 25, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Montebugnoli, L.; Venturi, M.; Cervellati, F.; Servidio, D.; Vocale, C.; Pagan, F.; Landini, M.P.; Magnani, G.; Sambri, V. Peri-Implant Response and Microflora in Organ Transplant Patients 1 Year after Prosthetic Loading: A Prospective Controlled Study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17, 972–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Howe, M.S.; Keys, W.; Richards, D. Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2019, 84, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Moraschini, V.; Poubel, L.A.D.C.; Ferreira, V.F.; Barboza, E.D.S.P. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2015, 44, 377–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Duttenhoefer, F.; Fuessinger, M.A.; Beckmann, Y.; Schmelzeisen, R.; Groetz, K.A.; Boeker, M. Dental implants in immunocompromised patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Implant Dent. 2019, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Patini, R.; Staderini, E.; Camodeca, A.; Guglielmi, F.; Gallenzi, P. Case Reports in Pediatric Dentistry Journals: A Systematic Review about Their Effect on Impact Factor and Future Investigations. Dent. J. 2019, 7, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Anderson-Smits, C.; Baker, E.R.; Hirji, I. Coinfection rates and clinical outcome data for cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus in post-transplant patients: A systematic review of the literature. Transpl. Infect. Dis. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Akram, Z.; Al-Aali, K.A.; Alrabiah, M.; Alonaizan, F.A.; Abduljabbar, T.; AlAhmari, F.; Javed, F.; Vohra, F. Current weight of evidence of viruses associated with peri-implantitis and peri-implant health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Rev. Med. Virol. 2019, 29, e2042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gonçalves, P.F.; Filho, G.D.R.N.; Sallum, E.A.; Sallum, A.W.; Junior, F.H.N. Immunosuppressant therapy and bone loss in ligature-induced periodontitis: A study in rats. Pesqui. Odontolog. Bras. 2003, 17, 46–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Duarte, P.M.; Filho, G.R.N.; Sallum, E.A.; Sallum, A.W.; Júnior, F.H.N. Short-term immunosuppressive therapy does not affect the density of the pre-existing bone around titanium implants placed in rabbits. Pesqui. Odontolog. Bras. 2003, 17, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Sivakumar, I.; Arunachalam, S.; Choudhary, S.; Buzayan, M.M. Does HIV infection affect the survival of dental implants? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. 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 Implant. Res. 2008, 19, 670–676. [Google Scholar]
Transplantology 01 00008 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
Transplantology 01 00008 g001
Transplantology 01 00008 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot of studies with Implants Incidence Rate Ratio values comparing transplanted and healthy patients. Mean effect size estimates have been calculated with 95% confidence intervals and are shown in the figure. Area of the squares represent sample size. Continuous horizontal lines and diamonds width represents 95% confidence interval. IRR—Incidence Rate Ratio; RE—Random Effects.
Figure 2. Forest plot of studies with Implants Incidence Rate Ratio values comparing transplanted and healthy patients. Mean effect size estimates have been calculated with 95% confidence intervals and are shown in the figure. Area of the squares represent sample size. Continuous horizontal lines and diamonds width represents 95% confidence interval. IRR—Incidence Rate Ratio; RE—Random Effects.
Transplantology 01 00008 g002
Transplantology 01 00008 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot of studies with Patients Incidence Rate Ratio values comparing transplanted and healthy patients. Mean effect size estimates have been calculated with 95% confidence intervals and are shown in the figure. Area of the squares represent sample size. Continuous horizontal lines and diamonds width represents 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3. Forest plot of studies with Patients Incidence Rate Ratio values comparing transplanted and healthy patients. Mean effect size estimates have been calculated with 95% confidence intervals and are shown in the figure. Area of the squares represent sample size. Continuous horizontal lines and diamonds width represents 95% confidence interval.
Transplantology 01 00008 g003
Transplantology 01 00008 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of studies with Marginal Bone Loss Rate of Means comparing transplanted and healthy patients. Mean effect size estimates have been calculated with 95% confidence intervals and are shown in the figure. Area of the squares represent sample size. Continuous horizontal lines and diamonds width represents 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4. Forest plot of studies with Marginal Bone Loss Rate of Means comparing transplanted and healthy patients. Mean effect size estimates have been calculated with 95% confidence intervals and are shown in the figure. Area of the squares represent sample size. Continuous horizontal lines and diamonds width represents 95% confidence interval.
Transplantology 01 00008 g004
Table
Table 1. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment.
Table 1. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessment.
Study (Year) (Country)12345678Score (Risk of Bias)
Hernández et al. (2019) (Spain) [28]aaaaa/bbaa9 (Low)
Radzewski and Osmola (2019) (Poland) [31]dcaaa/bbaa7 (Low)
Paredes et al. (2018) (Spain) [27]aaaaa/bbaa9 (Low)
Montebugnoli et al. (2015) (Italy) [32]ccaaa/bbaa7 (Low)
Table
Table 2. Studies Characteristics.
Table 2. Studies Characteristics.
StudyEffect SizeSOT SampleControlExclusion CriteriaClinical EnvironmentImmunotherapyImplant CharacteristicsImplant Follow-UpOutcomeFunding Sources
Hernández et al. (2019) (Spain) [28]Implant failure incidence rate and MBL25 partially edentulous Renal SOT who received 79 dental implants28 matched controls who received 86 dental implantsSuffering from untreated periodontitis, being smokers, or having a medical history of radiotherapy, severe or uncontrolled metabolic diseases, or lack of compliance. Private practice Prednisone, Tacrolimus + Mycophenolate Mofetil (15 patients)

Prednisone, Cyclosporine A + Mycophenolate Mofetil (9 patients)

Prednisone, Cyclosporine A + Azathioprine (2 patients)

Prednisone + Tacrolimus or Prednisone plus Cyclosporine A (2 patients)		Ti Unite, Nobel Biocare 3.75/4.00 or 5.00 mm diameter and 8/8.5/10/11.5/13 or 15 mm length Mean follow-up of 9.7 yearsImplant survival rate was over 98% in both test and control groups. Slightly increased marginal bone loss in the control group.Dentaid S. L. provided partial support
Radzewski and Osmola (2019) (Poland) [31] Implant failure incidence rate and MBL21 organ transplant immunosuppressed patients (Kidney, Pancreas, and Liver) who received 24 dental implants15 matched controls who received 15 dental implantsPatients with active periodontal disease, substantial occlusion disorders, bone diseases, blood coagulation disorders, untreated dyslipidemia, or were a smoker.University basedTacrolimus (majority) or Cyclosporine, Sirolimus, or Mycophenolate Mofetill, Sirolimus (12 patients)Naturactis; ETK, Sallanches, France2 yearsImplant stability and bone loss were not any different from those in healthy people.N/A
Paredes et al. (2018) (Spain) [27]Implant failure incidence rate and MBL14 pharmacologically immunosuppressed Liver TP with 48 dental implants16 matched controls who received 53 dental implantsSuffering from active periodontitis, being smokers, or having a medical history of radiotherapy, severe or uncontrolled metabolic diseases, or lack of compliance. Private practicePrednisone + Cyclosporin A + Azathioprine (2 patients)

Prednisone + Cyclosporin A + Mycophenolate Mofetil (5 patients)

Prednisone + Tacrolimus + Mycophenolate Mofetil (8 patients)

Prednisone + Cyclosporin A (1 patient)		Ti Unite ®; Nobel Biocare S.A., Gothenburg, Sweden 3.75, 4, & 5 mm diameterMean follow-up of +8 years100% implant survival in liver transplant patients after the pharmacological immunosuppression Dentaid S. L. provided partial support
Montebugnoli et al. (2015) (Italy) [32]MBL13 organ-transplanted (11 hearts, two livers) patients who received 29 submerged dental implants15 matched controls who received 15 dental implantsPrevious irradiation of the head and neck region, alcohol or drug abuse, or psychiatric disorders that made it difficult to obtain informed consent, severe bruxism or clenching habits, smoking, and cyclosporine-induced gingival overgrowth.University basedCyclosporin (11 patients) and Tacrolimus (2 patients)Standard tapered implants with anodized surfaces (NobelReplace Tapered Groovy, Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden). +3.5 mm diameter and +8 mm length1 yearImplant failure and bone loss were equivalent to those in controlNo funding
MBL—Mean Bone Loss; NA—Not applicable.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Paraizo, M.; Botelho, J.; Machado, V.; Mendes, J.J.; Alves, R.; Mascarenhas, P.; Cardoso, J.M. Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transplantology 2020, 1, 85-96. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology1020008

AMA Style

Paraizo M, Botelho J, Machado V, Mendes JJ, Alves R, Mascarenhas P, Cardoso JM. Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transplantology. 2020; 1(2):85-96. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology1020008

Chicago/Turabian Style

Paraizo, Marcela, João Botelho, Vanessa Machado, José João Mendes, Ricardo Alves, Paulo Mascarenhas, and José Maria Cardoso. 2020. "Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Transplantology 1, no. 2: 85-96. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology1020008

APA Style

Paraizo, M., Botelho, J., Machado, V., Mendes, J. J., Alves, R., Mascarenhas, P., & Cardoso, J. M. (2020). Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Transplantology, 1(2), 85-96. https://doi.org/10.3390/transplantology1020008

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop