» Articles » PMID: 35162583

Dental Implants in People with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Feb 15
PMID 35162583
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to answer the question of whether patients with osteogenesis imperfecta can be prosthetically rehabilitated with dental implants. A protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021286368). The inclusion criteria were the presence of osteogenesis imperfecta and the use of implants for prosthetic restorations. Cases in which the inclusion criteria were not met were excluded. PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were last searched on 22 August 2021. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Quality and Synthesis of Case Series and Case Reports tool. The primary outcome was implant survival. Supporting data were analyzed descriptively. Twelve studies were included. Twenty-three patients received a total number of 116 implants, with 5.0 (±3.8) implants placed per patient. The implant survival rate was 94.0% with a mean follow-up of 59.1 months (±36.1). A limitation of this review was the relatively short follow-up time in some of the included studies; therefore, the survival rate may be overestimated. Nevertheless, the available data showed the loss of only seven implants, with two implants lost due to implant fractures not attributable to the patient. With the limitations of this review and based on the available data, dental implants have a high survival rate in patients with osteogenesis imperfecta. Therefore, dental implants may be a viable treatment option for replacing missing teeth. This research was not funded by external resources.

Citing Articles

Investigation of oral health findings and genotype correlations in osteogenesis imperfecta.

Demir K, Gulec C, Aslanger A, Ozturk A, Ozsait Selcuk B, Tuna Ince E Odontology. 2024; .

PMID: 39674968 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-024-01036-7.


Dental Abnormalities in Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A Systematic Review.

Ventura L, Verdonk S, Zhytnik L, Ridwan-Pramana A, Gilijamse M, Schreuder W Calcif Tissue Int. 2024; 115(5):461-479.

PMID: 39294450 PMC: 11531448. DOI: 10.1007/s00223-024-01293-2.


Sclerostin antibody enhances implant osseointegration in bone with Col1a1 mutation.

Sung H, Kwon H, Stephan C, Reynolds S, Dai Z, van der Kraan P Bone. 2024; 186:117167.

PMID: 38876270 PMC: 11243590. DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2024.117167.

References
1.
Kim A, Abdelhay N, Levin L, Walters J, Gibson M . Antibiotic prophylaxis for implant placement: a systematic review of effects on reduction of implant failure. Br Dent J. 2020; 228(12):943-951. PMC: 7319948. DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-1649-9. View

2.
Beschnidt S, Cacaci C, Dedeoglu K, Hildebrand D, Hulla H, Iglhaut G . Implant success and survival rates in daily dental practice: 5-year results of a non-interventional study using CAMLOG SCREW-LINE implants with or without platform-switching abutments. Int J Implant Dent. 2018; 4(1):33. PMC: 6212375. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-018-0145-3. View

3.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M . Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 350:g7647. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. View

4.
Binger T, Rucker M, Spitzer W . Dentofacial rehabilitation by osteodistraction, augmentation and implantation despite osteogenesis imperfecta. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 35(6):559-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.01.014. View

5.
Caicedo-Rubio M, Ferres-Amat E, Ferres-Padro E . Implant-supported fixed prostheses in a Patient with Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A 4-year follow-up. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 9(12):e1482-e1486. PMC: 5794128. DOI: 10.4317/jced.53958. View