Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 414  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 203-206  

Comparative evaluation of marginal bone loss and implant failure rate in smokers and nonsmokers


1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Buddha Institute of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Dentistry, SKMCH, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India
3 Department of Prosthodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Oral Medicine and Radilogy, PDM Dental College and Research Institute, Bahadurgarh, Harayana, India
5 Department of Dentistry, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, India
6 Department of Prosthodontics, Patna Dental College and Hospital, Patna, India

Date of Submission15-Oct-2020
Date of Acceptance17-Oct-2020
Date of Web Publication05-Jun-2021

Correspondence Address:
Ritesh Vatsa
Department of Dentistry, Sri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur, Bihar
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_676_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: Smoking impose various ill-effects on the alveolar bone concerning dental implants including reduced bone height, delayed healing of bone, poor peri-implant bone formation, increased bone loss, and peri-implantitis. Aims: The present clinical trial was aimed to analyze the smoking effect on dental implant survival rate as well as marginal bone loss in dental implants. Materials and Methods: Out of 86 patients, Group I had 43 patients who were smokers and Group II had nonsmokers. Following the implant placement, marginal bone loss radiographically and mobility were assessed clinically at 3, 6, and 12 months after implant loading. Results: The mean marginal loss seen in smokers at 3 months was 2.13 ± 0.21, 2.46 ± 0.09, 2.60 ± 0.0.92, and 2.74 ± 0.11 for maxillary anterior, maxillary posterior, mandibular anterior, and mandibular posterior regions, respectively. The 12-month recall visit showed a higher proportion of smokers having implant mobility. In smokers, 13.95% (n = 6) of the study participants had implant mobility, whereas 6.97% (n = 3) of the nonsmokers had mobility. Conclusion: Smoking is associated with long-term implant failure which is directly proportional to the duration ad frequency of smoking. Furthermore, smoking has a detrimental effect on dental implants and its surrounding bone.

Keywords: Dental implants, marginal bone loss, nonsmokers, plaque index scores, smokers


How to cite this article:
Kumar A, Nasreen S, Bandgar S, Bhowmick D, Vatsa R, Priyadarshni P. Comparative evaluation of marginal bone loss and implant failure rate in smokers and nonsmokers. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S1:203-6

How to cite this URL:
Kumar A, Nasreen S, Bandgar S, Bhowmick D, Vatsa R, Priyadarshni P. Comparative evaluation of marginal bone loss and implant failure rate in smokers and nonsmokers. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 26];13, Suppl S1:203-6. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/5/203/317616




   Introduction Top


Loss of teeth eventually leads to compromised esthetics giving functional disability and incomplete smile appearance, which at last affects the life quality of patients. With the advancements in modern dentistry, using dental implants for replacing missing teeth has revolutionized treatment.[1] Using implant dentistry alleviates various problems associated with the restorative procedures for single as well as multiple teeth.[2]

In dental implants, the epithelial cells in the sulcular region are surrounded by the connective tissue above the bone.[3] The tissue stability is influenced via various cellular and molecular events.[4] Bone levels measured radiographically represent the most predictive clinical parameters of these molecular and cellular events.[5] Long-term implant survival depends largely on the surrounding bone due to its dynamic nature.[6]

Smoking imposes various ill-effects on the alveolar bone concerning dental implants including reduced bone height, delayed healing of bone, poor peri-implant bone formation, increased bone loss, and peri-implantitis.[7] Delayed failure of dental implants is highly linked with the habit of smoking, usually seen in the second implant surgical stage. Short implants placed in the maxilla are at additional risk for failure.[8],[9] Implant failure is defined as the mobility of the implant during osseointegration or postoperative loading. Nicotine, which is the active ingredient, involved in smoking, suppresses blood circulation in the bones and inhibits the normal functions of the bone-forming cells.[10]

Although smoking and resulting biological complications lead to bone loss and hence the failure of dental implants, dental implants are widely used as a replacement for missing single and multiple teeth.[11] Irrespective of removable or fixed prosthesis given following implant placement, the marginal bone loss remains the most predictable parameter for assessing implant success/failure. Marginal bone loss of a maximum of 1 mm following the 1st year of implant placement is considered successful about dental implants.[12]

Various studies in the literature list smoking as one of the most contributory factors leading to implant failure. The failure rate of 6.5%–20% is reported by different studies.[13],[14] In areas with poor quality of the trabecular bone, a higher implant failure is seen in smokers.[15] This can be the reason for the higher failure rate in the maxilla and the least failure in the mandibular posterior region.[16] Failure can be attributed to the nicotine absorption in the bloodstream leading to vasoconstriction.[17]

The present clinical trial was aimed to analyze the smoking effect on dental implant survival rate as well as marginal bone loss in dental implants.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present clinical trial was conducted on 86 patients comprising both males and females with an age range of 22 years to 67 years, in whom the dental implants were placed between 2 years. The 86 patients were divided into equal two groups: Group I with smokers and Group II with nonsmokers. Demographic data and detailed smoking history were recorded from each of the patients. Those patients who were smoking more than 10 cigarettes in every 24 h for 2 years minimum were included in Group I like smokers.

The inclusion criteria for the study were patients who maintained good oral hygiene having a score of plaque index and gingival index ≤ 1, periodontally healthy and stable teeth at the adjacent site to implant placement, no smoking history (for Group II), and patients who smoked more than 10 cigarettes per day for 2 years at least (for Group I). The exclusion criteria for the study were patients having any systemic disease, a disease affecting the bone, medication affecting bone metabolism and function, poor oral hygiene, pregnant females, wasting disease, parafunctional habits, and periodontitis cases.

Plaque index scores were interpreted as follows: 0 = no plaque, 1 = plaque on the probe, 2 = plaque on the implant seen by the naked eye, and 3 = abundance of soft matter. The gingival index recorded the presence of bleeding and was scored as follows: 0 = no bleeding, 1 = isolated bleeding spots visible, 2 = blood forms a confluent red line along the margin, and 3 = heavy or profuse bleeding.

Implant location was considered as anterior if the implant was placed in the incisor or canine region, whereas the posterior site was considered for premolars and molars. Following the implant placement, the recall was scheduled at 3, 6, and 12 months after implant loading. The recall visit was focused on revaluation, data collection, motivation, and instruction regarding the successful plaque control measures and risk factors associated with implant failure.

To assess the smoking effect, radiographic bone loss was evaluated using the digital intraoral periapical radiographs by measuring the distance from the implant (widest part) to the crest of the alveolar bone mesially and distally. The difference in the parameters at each recall interval was examined and recorded. The recorded data for both the groups were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA keeping the level of significance at P ≤ 0.05.


   Results Top


The present study was carried out to evaluate the effect of smoking on the survival rate of dental implants and their surrounding bone loss. The recorded demographic characteristics are summarized in [Table 1].
Table 1: Demographic parameters and implant characteristics of study participants

Click here to view


The crestal bone loss was evaluated on the digital intraoral periapical radiographs both on the mesial and distal sites of the implants. The mean values are depicted in [Table 2] and [Table 3]. Mobility in dental implants in both the groups is elaborated in [Table 4].
Table 2: Marginal bone loss at different time intervals in smokers

Click here to view
Table 3: Marginal bone loss at different time intervals in nonsmokers

Click here to view
Table 4: Mobility in dental implants in smokers and nonsmokers

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Smoking leads to widespread systemic effects, which further initiates various mechanisms leading to impaired responses to implant treatment.[17] Various studies in the literature suggest a 1.69 times more implant mobility in smokers when compared to nonsmokers. These studies show smoking as an important risk factor for delayed implant failure.[4],[18]

A study in literature by Deluca S in 2006 and Bain CA in 1993 has reported a significantly higher number of cases with peri-implantitis and implant failure in smokers. The findings of this study were consistent with the results presented, where a higher bone loss (marginal) was found in smokers at all the recall intervals.[19],[20]

The present study was conducted to assess smoking effects on marginal bone loss and long-term implant survival. The present clinical trial showed a higher marginal bone loss in smokers with dental implants at all the recall intervals of 3, 6, and 12 months. The mean loss (marginal bone) seen in the present study with smokers at 3 months was 2.13 ± 0.21, 2.46 ± 0.09, 2.60 ± 0.0.92, and 2.74 ± 0.11 for maxillary anterior, maxillary posterior, mandibular anterior, and mandibular posterior regions, respectively. The mean bone loss at 12 months increased to 2.6 ± 0.10, 3.23 ± 0.11, 3.30 ± 0.075, and 3.20 ± 0.093, respectively; this difference was statistically significant with P ˂ 0.00001. The findings of the present study were consistent with the study by Barzanji SA et al. in 2018, Pereira ML et al. in 2008, Feloutzis A et al. in 2013, Kan JY et al. 1999 and Lindquist LW et al. in 1996,[21],[22],[23],[24],[25] all of which have reported a statistically significant increase in marginal bone loss in smokers, especially in heavy smokers. P value for these studies was < 0.01, 0.027, and < 0.01, respectively. All these values were lower concerning nonsmokers.


   Conclusion Top


Despite smoking being not considered as an absolute contraindication for implant placement, smoking has a detrimental effect on bone loss around dental implants. Marginal bone loss is also higher in smokers as compared to nonsmokers. Hence, the smoker patients in whom dental implants are placed should be given proper education and motivation for smoking cessation for long-term implant survival.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Feller L, Jadwat F, Khammissa RA, Meyerov R, Schechter I, Lemmer J. Cellular responses evoked by different surface characteristics of intraosseous titanium implants. Biomed Res Int. 2015;17:1945.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lago L, Da Silva L, Gude F, Rilo B. Bone and Soft Tissue Response in Bone-Level Implants Restored With Platform Switching: A 5-Year Clinical Prospective Study. International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants. 2017;32:919-26.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Lee JWY, Bance ML. Physiology of Osseointegration. Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am. 2019;52:231-42.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Sverzut AT, Stabile GA, de Moraes M, Mazzonetto R, Moreira RW. The influence of tobacco on early dental implant failure. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2008;66:1004-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Balatsouka D, Gotfredsen K, Lindh CH, Berglundh T. The impact of nicotine on bone healing and osseointegration. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:268-76.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Garg A. Pathophysiology of tobacco use and wound healing. Dent Implantol Update 2010;21:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Takamiya AS, Goiato MC, Filho HG. Effect of smoking on the survival of dental implants. Biomed Pap Med Fac, 2014;158:650-3.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Zitzmann NU, Berglundh T. Definition and prevalence of peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:286-91.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ma L, Zwahlen RA, Zheng LW, Sham MH. Influence of nicotine on the biological activity of rabbit osteoblasts. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2011;22:338-42.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Akram Z, Javed F, Vohra F. Effect of waterpipe smoking on peri-implant health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Investig Clin Dent. 2019;10:12403.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. 2nd ed. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014. pp. 43-52.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Sanchez-Perez A, Moya-Villaescusa MJ, Caffesse RG. Tobacco as a risk factor for the survival of dental implants. J Periodontol. 2007;78:351-9.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Naseri R, Yaghini J, Feizi A. Levels of smoking and dental implants failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2020;47:518-28.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Shroff Y, Shah M, Vyas M, Pandya R. Smoking and implant failure: An evidence based review. IOSR J Dent Med Sci. 2018;17:60-4.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Klokkevold PR, Han TJ. How do smoking, diabetes, and periodontitis affect outcomes of implant treatment? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(Suppl):173-202.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lambert PM, Morris HF, Ochi S. The influence of smoking on the 3-year clinical success of osseointegrated dental implants. Ann Periodontol. 2000;5:79-89.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
O'Connell G, Pritchard JD, Prue C, Thompson J, Verron T, Graf D, et al, A randomised, open-label, cross-over clinical study to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profles of cigarettes and e-cigarettes with nicotine salt formulations in US adult smokers. Intern Emerg Med 2019;14:853-61.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Nitzan D, Mamlider A, Levin L, Schwartz-Arad D. Impact of Smoking on Marginal Bone Loss. The Int J Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2005;20:605-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Deluca S, Habsha E, Zarb GA. The effect of smoking on osseointegrated dental implants. Part I: Implant survival. The International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2006;19:491-498.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Bain CA, Moy PK. The association between the failure of dental implants and cigarette smoking. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:609-15.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Barzanji SA, Chatzopoulou D, Gillam DG. Impact of smoking as a risk factor for dental implant failure: A critical review. BAOJ Dent 2018;4:045.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Pereira ML, Carvalho JC, Peres F, Gutierres M, Fernandes MH. The Behaviour of human osteoblastic cells cultured on plasma-sprayed titanium implants in the presence of nicotine. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:582-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Feloutzis A, Lang NP, Tonetti MS, Burgin W, Bragger U, Buser D, et al. IL-1 gene polymorphism and smoking as risk factors for peri-implant bone loss in a well-maintained population. Clin Oral Impl Res 2013;14:10-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL, Goodacre CJ. Effects of smoking on implant success in grafted maxillary sinuses. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:307-11.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. A prospective 15-year follow-up study of mandibular fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996;7:329-36.  Back to cited text no. 25
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed448    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded32    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal