Clinical performance of titanium-zirconium implants with a hydrophilic surface in patients with controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus: 2-year results from a prospective case-control clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: Analyze the 2-year clinical performance of single-unit titanium-zirconium (TiZr) alloy narrow-diameter (3.3 mm) dental implants with a hydrophilic surface (Straumann® Roxolid®, SLActive®) in patients with controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), measured using the glycated hemoglobin A (HbA1c) concentration test, compared with results in individuals without T2DM. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The studied sample consisted of 28 patients, 14 with T2DM (study group) and 14 without (control group). The plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment level, gingival biotype, and marginal bone loss (MBL) at the site of the implants were assessed. HbA1c levels were assessed in all patients during each checkup. RESULTS: Two years after implant placement and prosthetic restoration no implant failures were reported in either group, resulting in 100% survival and success rates in both groups. No statistically significant differences in MBL were found between the control and study groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that reduced-diameter TiZr alloy implants with a hydrophilic surface represent a safe and predictable treatment option for patients with well-controlled T2DM. The clinical performance was comparable with that observed in individuals without T2DM in the medium term. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The narrow implants placed in patients with T2DM with well-controlled glycemia (HbA1c) showed a marginal bone loss and success and survival rates similar to those of the control group without DM2, in the medium term.

A Prospective Case-Control Clinical Study of Titanium-Zirconium Alloy Implants with a Hydrophilic Surface in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

PURPOSE: To evaluate prospectively the behavior of narrow-diameter (3.3-mm) titanium-zirconium alloy implants with a hydrophilic surface (Straumann Roxolid SLActive) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in single-unit restorations, compared with a healthy control group (assessed using the glycosylated hemoglobin HbA1c test). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patients evaluated in this study required single-unit implant treatment; 15 patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus, and 14 patients were healthy (control group [CG]). Marginal bone level (MBL) change around the implants was evaluated using conventional, sequential periapical digital radiographs. Patient HbA1c was assessed in each check-up. Normality test (Kolmogorov-Smirnov), univariate and multivariate logistic regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: No differences in MBL change and implant survival and success rates were found between the diabetes mellitus group (DMG) versus the control group, either during the initial recording (DMG, 0.99 ± 0.56 vs CG, 0.68 ± 0.54; P > .05) or 6 months after restoration (DMG, 1.28 ± 0.38 vs CG, 1.11 ± 0.59; P > .05). No significant correlation between HbA1c levels and MBL change was detected in these patients (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Patients with glycemic control exhibit similar outcomes to healthy individuals with regard to the investigated parameters. In light of these findings, the titanium-zirconium alloy small-diameter implants can be used in the anterior region of the mouth in type 2 diabetic patients.

Dental implants placement in paranoid squizofrenic patient with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Paranoid schizophrenia is a mental illness that involves no observable anatomical alteration. Main characteristic affects the personality of the individual, as well as areas of his own psychology. CASE REPORT: A 33-year-old man with paranoid schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorder in treatment with Haloperidol, Oxcarbazepine, Olanzapine and Seroquel is presented. Dental exploration showed widespread decay mostly cervical with numerous root fragments, agenesis of lateral incisors, impacted wisdom teeth, missing teeth and malocclusion. Treatment plan included restoration of teeth decay, extractions of root fragments and implant-supported prostheses in bilateral upper lateral incisors for aesthetics reason. A previous consultation with a psychiatric specialist was performed and no contraindication were observed. A preliminary radiological examination was performed previous dental treatment and implant placement. Due to patient refusal to replace dental abscenses with implants, inform consent was signed up from his parents. After local anesthesia, first implant was placed at upper right lateral positions (Straumann Bone Level Ø 3.3 mm, length 10 mm). Two weeks later a second implant was placed at upper left lateral position (Straumann Bone Level Ø 3.3 mm, length 12 mm). The patient showed no postoperative complications. After implant placement, the patient attended scheduled review appointments. The prosthesis was placed after a 3-month period of osseointegration. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement can be considered a suitable option for people with mental disorders. A previous consultation with psychiatric specialists for conducting a good patient management is necessaire. Key words:Paranoid schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, dental implants.