- Open Access
Bruxism and implant: where are we? A systematic review
Bulletin of the National Research Centre volume 46, Article number: 172 (2022)
The aim of this Systematic review is to provide more accurate knowledge about the relation between bruxism, Dental implant and the implant-supported prosthesis.
Material and methods
A systematic search in Medline (PubMed) and manual search in implant-related journals was performed in February 2021 with time range extending from 2010 to 2021, with no language restriction in order to identify all papers assessing the role of bruxism, as a risk factor for implants and/or implant supported prosthesis.
16 papers were included in the review and split into 3 categories assessing implant complications (n = 10), those reporting prosthetic complications (n = 3) and those reporting both (n = 3). From a biological and mechanical complications point of view, bruxism was related with implant and prosthetic failures.
Bruxism is a risk factor for implants failure, and a risk factor for mechanical complications for implant supported prosthesis as well.
Bruxism is a repetitive jaw-muscle activity characterized by clenching or grinding of teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible. It can damage teeth structures, lead to failure of dental restorations and tooth wear. While it is recognized that bruxism can be considered a risk factor for implant mechanical complications, the evidence implicating its involvement in implant failure is weak; Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to study the relation between bruxism, implant failure, and failure of implant-supported restorations.
In oral parafunctions, the masticatory system is mobilized for an activity neither functional, nor truly pathogenic. But, this parafunctional hyperactivity results in the increase in intensity and time of the forces applied. One of the most recognized parafunctions is bruxism (Duminil et al. 2015).
Bruxism is a repetitive jaw-muscle activity characterized by clenching or grinding of teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible. Bruxism has two distinct circadian manifestations: it can occur during sleep (sleep bruxism) or during wakefulness (awake bruxism) (Raphael et al. 2016). The two circadian phenotypes of bruxism should not be considered as disorder in healthy patients, but a risk factor for negative consequences (Lobbezoo et al. 2018). We will therefore consider moderate bruxism as probably more beneficial than harmful. On the other hand, we will be particularly interested in severe bruxism in the face of fragile joint, dental structures or prosthesis. This severe bruxism is to be considered as pathofunction (Orthlieb 2017).
Though bruxism cannot be considered a life-threatening factor, it can damage teeth structures, lead to failure of dental restorations and tooth wear (Manfredini et al. 2011).
Osseointegrated dental implants are linked rigidly to the bone, and unlike the tooth-periodontium interface, they lack the ability to adapt reversibly to different loading conditions. Therefore, implants should be considered as negatively affected by bruxism (Sarmento et al. 2012). While it is recognized that bruxism can be considered a risk factor for implant mechanical complications, the evidence implicating its involvement in implant failure is weak (Lavigne et al. 2020). Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to study the relation between bruxism, implant failure, and failure of implant-supported restorations.
Materials and methods
This review was done by two reviewers independently. In case of disagreement a discussion is was engaged, and in case of conflict, a third reviewer was consulted.
This review included clinical studies on humans, assessing the role of bruxism, diagnosed with any approach (questionnaires and interviews, clinical assessment, polysomnography), as a risk factor for implant osseointegration (implant failure, mobility, and marginal bone loss) or mechanical complications on dental implant-supported rehabilitations.( implant fracture, prosthesis fracture …).
Studies included in this review fulfilled the following criteria:
Randomized and non-randomized control trials, retrospective studies, cohort studies.
Relevant data on bruxism effects
Minimum number of 20 implants in the study.
Follow-up data available for a minimum of 12 months
Studies excluded from this review presented one of more of the following:
Systematic review, meta analyses, and literature review
Case report or control.
Animal experimental study.
Guidelines and recommendation papers.
Immediate or early loaded implants.
On the 6th of February 2021, a systematic search was performed in the National Library of Medicine’s Database (PUBMED) to identify all studies dealing with the bruxism–dental implant complications. The following keywords were used in different combinations (Bruxism), (Teeth clenching) (Teeth grinding) (Implant) (dental Implant), (Implant failure), (Implant complication).
This search was focused from a time range from 2010 to 2021 with no language restrictions.
Moreover, a manual search was carried out from 2010 to 2021 in the following journals:
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, and Journal of Periodontology.
The search was then elaborated for the articles related to the selected ones, and to the reference lists of the Full-text papers.
The search allowed identifying 313 citations, the abstracts of which were read to select articles to be retrieved in full text.
A master list of 343 studies with potentially useful outcomes information was generated from the literature search. Titles and abstracts of the initially identified 343 articles were included or excluded by one reviewer. Then, papers with abstracts containing potentially relevant information were selected for further critical appraisal of the full text by two different reviewers.
Systematic assessment of papers
The characteristics of the selected studies were assessed according to an evidence based format summary, PICO. PICO, ‘P’ Population or problem or patient, ‘I’ Intervention or exposure, ‘C’ Comparison and ‘O’ outcomes (Clarkson 2002).
In this assessment, “P” describes the sample size and demographics features of the population (sex ratio, age mean …). “I” describes the study characteristics number of implants, prosthetic protocol, and follow-up time. “C” depicts the bruxism issues, the method of diagnosis of the bruxism, plus the criteria put by the authors to asses bruxism role in implant and prosthesis failure. Finally “O” portrays the induction of bruxism on the implant-prosthesis system.
All these features above of the included studies in this review were put in a table to clarify them. These tables included the weak and strength points of the studies, and conclusion of the evidence found in the studies. (Tables 1, 2 and 3).
The search strategy selected 343 articles. 178 articles were removed as duplicate from the combinations of terms used in the literature. The initial screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 165 articles; 89 irrelevant were excluded. The title and abstracts of the remaining 76 articles led to the exclusion of 50 because they did not meet the inclusion criteria (18 reviews, 10 guidelines and management comparison, 3 abstracts were not found, 7 finite elements studies, 10 case reports, and 3 animal experiments.
After a full text screening, 9 more articles were excluded from this review, 4 studies for not having the minimum implant number and 5 for being immediately loaded. Thus, 16 studies were included in this review. (Fig. 1).
The 16 included studies were divided into three groups:
The first group (n = 10) (Chrcanovic et al. 2016, 2018a, b; Papi et al. 2017; Zupnik et al. 2011; Angelis et al. 2017; Yadav et al. 2016; Kandasamy et al. 2018; Mohanty et al. 2018; Chatzopoulos and Wolff 2020) assembled those studies assessing implant failure, the second (n = 3) (Chitumalla et al. 2018; Chrcanovic et al. 2017, 2020) those assessing implant and prosthesis complications, and the third (n = 3) (Anitua et al. 2017; Mikeli and Walter 2016; Chochlidakis et al. 2020) and those assessing implant-supported prosthesis complications only.
The first group (Table 1) included more than twelve thousand seven hundred and seventeen implants inserted in more than seven thousand eight hundred forty-nine patients. The follow-up varies from 6 to 24 years in average. Only two studies didn’t mention or had a follow-up time (Zupnik et al. 2011; Yadav et al. 2016). Four of the articles studied specifically and directly the effect of bruxism on implant (Chrcanovic et al. 2016; Chrcanovic et al. 2016; Papi et al. 2017; Yadav et al. 2016; Chatzopoulos and Wolff 2020), however the others focused on the risk factor of implant (n = 4) (Zupnik et al. 2011; Chrcanovic et al. 2018; Angelis et al. 2017; Kandasamy et al. 2018) or follow-up of implant survival (Chrcanovic et al. 2018; Kandasamy et al. 2018). The implant failure criteria were divergent (implant lost, marginal bone loss, or implant mobility…) Bruxism diagnosis criteria varied from one study to another Self-reported (Zupnik et al. 2011; Chatzopoulos and Wolff 2020), clinical exam (Chrcanovic et al. 2016; Yadav et al. 2016), and other studies didn’t specify it (Chrcanovic et al. 2018; Papi et al. 2017; Chrcanovic et al. 2018; Angelis et al. 2017; Kandasamy et al. 2018; Mohanty et al. 2018).Only two studies showed a non-significance correlation (Zupnik et al. 2011; Chatzopoulos and Wolff 2020). Other two studies showed a significant correlation with uncertainty (Chrcanovic et al. 2018; Angelis et al. 2017). Almost all of the studies showed a positive correlation between bruxism and implant failure having an odds ration from 2.45 to 3.6.
The second group (Table 2) displayed one thousand nine hundred ninety prosthesis supported by six thousand five hundred sixty two implants inserted in one thousand three hundred sixty two patients. The three studies showed a high follow-up time for 5 years minimum, and showed a well-defined bruxism diagnosis based on questionnaire and clinical examination. Two of the studies were specifically done for bruxism patients (Chitumalla et al. 2018; Chrcanovic et al. 2017). All the studies showed a positive correlation between bruxism, implant failure, and prosthetic complications with an odds ratio of 2.71 (Chrcanovic et al. 2017) and complication in 29% of the prosthesis (Chrcanovic et al. 2020).
The mechanical complications in this group are showed below in Table 4.
The final group (Table 3) showed more than five hundred prosthesis supported by more than five hundred eighty nine implant inserted in two hundred and eleven patients. Two studies studied specifically effect of bruxism on implant-supported prosthesis (Anitua et al. 2017; Mikeli and Walter 2016). The three studies verified the bruxism by a clinical examination. The three studies were retrospective with a minimum of a mean 63 month-follow-up period. The three studies showed a positive relationship between bruxism and mechanical complications with a 3.6 times more complication in bruxors.
The mechanical complications in this group are showed below in Table 4.
The aim of this article is to evaluate the effect of bruxism (sleep and awake bruxism) on the osseointegrated dental implant survival rate and on the implant-supported prosthesis complications. However, the findings on this topic had been controversial. In addition only 2 systematic reviews are done on this topic (2014 and 2015) and they were inconclusive (Zhou et al. 2016; Manfredini et al. 2014). Therefore, the importance of this literature review aims to re-analyse the previous work and synthesise new outcomes (Additional file 1: PRISMA-P 2020 check list).
From another point of view this systemic review protocol and structure is in complete rhyme with the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist (data collection, selection and processing ….)(Moher et al. 2015).
However due to absence of randomized and non-randomized clinical trials, this review had to be based on observational studies. The authors had no choice except to choose retrospective protocols based on systematic review guidelines (Johnson and Hennessy 2019). Despite that, this review adopted very strict inclusion criteria (minimum implant number, delayed loading …) and exclusion criteria (animal experiments, case report, immediate loading). In addition, these studies were divided in 3 groups, based on the criterion studies, (implant, prosthesis or both): This selection played a role in closing the gap between the studies thus reducing the protocol differences and creating a large homogenenous population.
Moreover, nine of these studies were specifically designed to address bruxism as a risk factor to dental implant and/or its prosthesis: the remaining 7 studies were designed to study risk factor including bruxism. (diabetes, oral hygiene, smoking cigarette…). In summary, all the studies had taken into consideration bruxism either directly or indirectly.
The only criteria breaking the homogeneity was bruxism diagnosis. According to the literature, bruxism diagnosis is known for the variety of approaches. Each approach has a level of evidence, self-reported is known as a possible bruxism (the lowest evidence) followed by clinical examination and questionnaire known as probable bruxism and finally established bruxism diagnosis by polysomnography ( the highest level of evidence) (Lobbezoo et al. 2013).
Most of the studies with negative or uncertain results have either an unclear bruxism diagnosis or asses a self-reported bruxism. This can explain negative results by including non bruxors in bruxism group. Recent references showed that dental attrition alone could not diagnose bruxism, because attrition have multiple aetiologies (Duminil et al. 2015). In addition, several publications showed a difference in numbers between self-reported bruxism only and those supported by clinical examination. In one study, self-reported bruxism highlights a 95 bruxors, but after clinical exam only 69 were considered as bruxors, thus eliminating 26 patients (Mikeli and Walter 2016). Eleven studies out of thirteen have demonstrated the important contribution of bruxism to implant survival and failure: they showed that in bruxors, implants have more marginal bone loss, mobility and failure rates. However, the remaining two studies didn’t show any correlation between the chosen parameters. As discussed earlier, the two result could be distorted due to the bruxism inapropriate diagnosis (Zupnik et al. 2011; Chatzopoulos and Wolff 2020). On the other hand, bruxism was found related and a risk factor for mechanical complications of implant-supported rehabilitations in all the studies. They showed that this prosthesis had more chipping, fracture, and wear incidence in patients with bruxism compared to non bruxors.
Considering the above, bruxism can be considered as risk factor for implant survival rate, and a mechanical risk for implant-supported rehabilitations. This finding is in correspondence with a meta-analysis in the literature (Zhou et al. 2016).
This needs to be confirmed or verified with an appropriate design study (cohort or RCT’s). The literature describes a prospective cohort study addressing bruxism and dental implant (Thymi et al. 2017) but unfortunately this trial has failed: low patient recruitment and bruxism diagnosis were the main causes behind its failure (Thymi et al. 2020). Therefore, this trial must be taken into consideration in order to construct a well formed protocol design for future trials. That’s why scientific and reliable studies are needed in future research.
This Systematic review evaluated the relationship between bruxism implant, and implant supported prosthesis. It indicates that bruxism is to be considered as risk factor for dental implants failure, and mechanical complications for implant-supported prosthesis.
Further research with a clear and evident bruxism diagnosis and unified units of measurements and an appropriate protocol is warranted to verify and justify this systemic review’s outcomes.
Availability of data and material
A protocol was not prepared. A systematic search was performed in the National Library of Medicine’s Database (PUBMED) to identify all studies dealing with the bruxism–dental implant complications. The following keywords were used in different combinations (Bruxism), (Teeth clenching) (Teeth grinding) (Implant) (dental Implant), (Implant failure), (Implant complication).
This search was focused from a time range from 2010 to 2021 with no language restrictions. Moreover, a manual search was carried out from 2010 to 2021 in the following journals:
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of Craniofacial Surgery, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, and Journal of Periodontology. The search was then elaborated for the articles related to the selected ones, and to the reference lists of the Full-text papers.
The search allowed identifying 313 citations, the abstracts of which were read to select articles to be retrieved in full text.
‘P’ Population or problem or patient, ‘I’ Intervention or exposure, ‘C’ Comparison and ‘O’ outcomes
Randomised controlled trials
Anitua E, Saracho J, Almeida GZ, Duran-Cantolla J, Alkhraisat MH (2017) Frequency of prosthetic complications related to implant-borne prosthesis in a sleep disorder unit. J Oral Implantol 43(1):19–23
Chatzopoulos GS, Wolff LF (2020) Symptoms of temporomandibular disorder, self-reported bruxism, and the risk of implant failure: A retrospective analysis. Cranio J Craniomandib Pract 38(1):50–57
Chitumalla R, Halini Kumari KV, Mohapatra A, Parihar AS, Anand KS, Katragadda P (2018) Assessment of survival rate of dental implants in patients with bruxism: a 5-year retrospective study. Contemp Clin Dent 9(Suppl 2):S278–S282
Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, Papaspyridakos P, Romeo D, Barmak AB et al (2020) Implant survival and biologic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: An up to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.011
Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2016) Bruxism and dental implant failures: a multilevel mixed effects parametric survival analysis approach. J Oral Rehabil 43(11):813–823
Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2017) Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(7):e1-9
Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2018) A retrospective study on clinical and radiological outcomes of oral implants in patients followed up for a minimum of 20 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20(2):199–207
Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A (2018) Factors influencing the fracture of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 20(1):58–67
Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C (2020) Retrospective evaluation of implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prostheses after a mean follow-up of 10 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 31(7):634–645
Clarkson J (2002) Evidence based dentistry for effective practice. Thieme
De Angelis F, Papi P, Mencio F, Rosella D, Di Carlo S, Pompa G (2017) Implant survival and success rates in patients with risk factors: results from a long-term retrospective study with a 10 to 18 years follow-up. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 21(3):433–437
Duminil G, Le JDO (2015) Bruxisme, tout simplementa
Johnson BT, Hennessy EA (2019) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses. Soc Sci Med 233:237–251
Kandasamy B, Kaur N, Tomar GK, Bharadwaj A, Manual L, Chauhan M (2018) Long-term retrospective study based on implant success rate in patients with risk factor: 15-year follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract 19(1):90–93
Lavigne GJ, Cistulli PA, Smith MT (eds) (2020) Sleep medicine for dentists: an evidence-based overview, 2nd edn. Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc, Batavia, IL, p 224
Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG, Kato T, Koyano K, Lavigne GJ et al (2013) Bruxism defined and graded: an international consensus. J Oral Rehabil 40(1):2–4
Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Raphael KG, Wetselaar P, Glaros AG, Kato T et al (2018) International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: report of a work in progress. J Oral Rehabil 45(11):837–844
Manfredini D, Bucci MB, Sabattini VB, Lobbezoo F (2011) Bruxism: overview of current knowledge and suggestions for dental implants planning. Cranio J Craniomandib Pract 29(4):304–312
Manfredini D, Poggio CE, Lobbezoo F (2014) Is bruxism a risk factor for dental implants? A systematic review of the literature. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 16(3):460–469
Mikeli A, Walter MH (2016) Impact of bruxism on ceramic defects in implant-borne fixed dental prostheses: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont 29(3):296–298
Mohanty R, Sudan PS, Dharamsi AM, Mokashi R, Misurya AL, Kaushal P (2018) Risk assessment in long-term survival rates of dental implants: a prospective clinical study. J Contemp Dent Pract 19(5):587–590
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M et al (2015) Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 4(1):1
Orthlieb J-D (2017) Le bruxisme. Entret Bichat Pitié-Salpêtrière D’Odontologie-Stomatol
Papi P, Di Carlo S, Mencio F, Rosella D, De Angelis F, Pompa G (2017) Dental implants placed in patients with mechanical risk factors: a long-term follow-up retrospective study. J Int Soc Prev Commun Dent 7(Suppl 1):S48-51
Raphael KG, Santiago V, Lobbezoo F (2016) Is bruxism a disorder or a behaviour? Rethinking the international consensus on defining and grading of bruxism. J Oral Rehabil 43(10):791–798
Sarmento HR, Dantas RVF, Pereira-Cenci T, Faot F (2012) Elements of implant-supported rehabilitation planning in patients with bruxism. J Craniofac Surg 23(6):1905–1909
Thymi M, Visscher CM, Yoshida-Kohno E, Crielaard W, Wismeijer D, Lobbezoo F (2017) Associations between sleep bruxism and (peri-) implant complications: a prospective cohort study. BDJ Open 3:17003
Thymi M, Visscher CM, Wismeijer D, Lobbezoo F (2020) Associations between sleep bruxism and (peri-) implant complications: lessons learned from a clinical study. BDJ Open 6(1):1–8
Yadav K, Nagpal A, Agarwal SK, Kochhar A (2016) Intricate assessment and evaluation of effect of bruxism on long-term survival and failure of dental implants: a comparative study. J Contemp Dent Pract 17(8):670–674
Zhou Y, Gao J, Luo L, Wang Y (2016) Does bruxism contribute to dental implant failure? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 18(2):410–420
Zupnik J, Kim S, Ravens D, Karimbux N, Guze K (2011) Factors associated with dental implant survival: a 4-year retrospective analysis. J Periodontol 82(10):1390–1395
No source of funding.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
The authors don’t have any competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Youssef, A., Hobeiche, J., El Zoghbi, A. et al. Bruxism and implant: where are we? A systematic review. Bull Natl Res Cent 46, 172 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-022-00852-7
- Implanted-supported prosthesis
- Risk factor and mechanical complications