Clinical Evaluation of Short Tuberosity Implants among Type 2 Diabetic and Non-Diabetic Patients: A 5 Year Follow-Up

• Published in: Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Vol. 58; no. 10; p. 1487
• Main Authors: Tulbah, Huda I, Alsahhaf, Abdulaziz, AlRumaih, Hamad S, Vohra, Fahim, Abduljabbar, Tariq
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 01.10.2022; MDPI
• Subjects: Age; Care and treatment; Complications and side effects; crestal bone loss; Dental implants; Diabetes; Diabetics; Disease; Ethics; Fractures; Implant dentures; Medical prognosis; Patient outcomes; periodontal parameters; Prostheses; Questionnaires; short tuberosity implant; Saudi Arabia; United States > US
• ISSN: 1648-9144; 1010-660X; 1648-9144
• DOI: 10.3390/medicina58101487

Aim: To assess clinical and radiographic parameters including bleeding on probing (BoP); probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI) and crestal bone loss (CBL) around short tuberosity implants (STI) supporting fixed partial dentures in patients with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and non-diabetics. Material and Methods: Participants with T2DM and without T2DM with at least one STI (6 mm) posteriorly restored with a fixed partial denture splinting premolar implant were included. A questionnaire collected demographic details including gender, age, duration of diabetes, habits of brushing, the total number of dental implants and location, implant loading after placement, restoration type, and family history of DM. Clinical and radiographic assessment of peri-implant parameters, i.e., bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and crestal bone loss (CBL) was performed. The restorative success of STI was determined by no sensation of the foreign body, lack of pain and dysesthesia, lack of infection, no radiolucency around the implant, and no mobility. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Twenty-five T2DM (19 males and 6 females) and 25 non-diabetic (18 males and 7 females) participants were included. The number of STIs in T2DM was 41, whereas in non-diabetic it was 38. At 1 year follow-up, mean PI% in T2DM participants was 18.9% (19.2–21.4%) and in non-diabetics it was 17.6% (16.3–18.5%). The mean PD was recorded in diabetics (1.3 ± 5.0 mm) and non-diabetics (1.1 ± 3.2 mm). The BoP value in diabetics was 44.9% (39.8–46.4%) and 28.2% in non-diabetics (17.2–24.6%). At 5 years of follow-up, the mean PI% range in T2DM participants was 26.18% (25.4–29.1%) and 24.42% in non-diabetic (20.1–25.5%). The mean PD in millimeters around STI in T2DM was observed to be 2.3 ± 4.8 mm and 1.4 ± 3.4 mm in non-diabetics. In addition, BoP in diabetic participants was 39.54% (27.7–42.1%) and 24.42% in non-diabetics (20.1–25.5%). A total of six STIs failed, i.e., two in the non-diabetic and four in the T2DM group. Conclusions: Patients with T2DM have poor periodontal (BoP, PD, CBL) and restorative peri-implant parameters around STIs when compared to healthy (non-diabetic) participants at five years of follow-up. For long-term stability, glycemic control is pivotal along with following good plaque control.