Table 1 Summary of studies assessing the role of bruxism in implant failure
From: Bruxism and implant: where are we? A systematic review
Study | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome | Conclusion | Strength points | Weak points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chrcanovic et al. (2018a) | 227 patients 95 M 132 F | 1,045 implants follow-up (291.0 ± 33.7) | Bruxism patients (no criteria) Implant loss univariate generalized estimating equations | Bruxism is a factor of implant failure Odds ratio 2.8 | Yes | Unclear criteria for bruxism diagnosis No patient-based data | |
Chrcanovic et al. (2016) | 994 patients, 478 men mean age ‘60.4’ and 516 women mean age ‘59.6’ | 3549 implants follow-up time variable | Bruxism (clinical exam) failed implant (loss of the implant.) | Bruxism is a factor of implant failure Odds ratio 2.71 | Yes | Bruxism diagnosis based on clinical examination | Risk factors not weighted |
Papi et al. (2017) | 98 patients 56 M 33F | 227 dental implants follow-up 13.6 year | Bruxism (no criteria) Mechanical risk factors (personal criteria) | evident relationship between Bruxism and dental implant failure. hazard ratio of 2.9 | Yes | Small sample Bruxism no diagnosis criteria | |
Zupnik et al. (2011) | Mean age 52.4 no sex and age specification | 341 implants (No specification of follow-up) (121 in clenchers vs 220 in Non clenchers) | Bruxism (Self-reported) Implant failure (Albrektsson criteria) | Clenching does not contribute in implant failure | No | Multiple variable Assessment | Unspecified number of patients Unclear follow-up bruxism self-reported diagnosis |
Chrcanovic et al.(2018b) | 2,670 patients | 10,099 Implants follow-up time variable | Bruxism (No criteria) An implant fracture (personal criteria) | Bruxism could influence the incidence of implant fracture Odds ratio 3.6 | Yes | Age and sexes distribution Undefined Bruxism diagnosis | |
De Angelis (2017) | 225 patients mean age ‘50.6′ 145 F 80 M | 871 implants were included in the study 10 to 18 years follow-up | Bruxism (No Criteria) load risk (implants with crown/implant relation > 0.8 | Bruxism only may not imply an increase of failure risk Hazard ratio 2.9 | Uncertain | Multiple variable assessment | Undefined bruxism diagnosis Risk factors not weighted |
Yadav et al. 2016 | 1100 patients, 610 F 490 M | Unidentified number of implants No follow-up | Bruxism (clinical examination) Implant failure (personal criteria) | Dental implant success rate is affected by bruxism Odds Ratio 2.45 | Yes | Patients at risk assessment Bruxism diagnosis based on clinical exam | Unclear Implant failure criteria Number of implants in the study Multiple surgeon |
Kandasamy (2018) | 200 patients Mean age 47.5 years 88 M 112 F | 650 implants 15-year follow-up | Schnitman and Shulman success criteria. Bruxism (no criteria) | Failure rate due to bruxism was 14.55% | Yes | Multiple variable assessment | Undefined bruxism diagnosis |
Mohanty et al. (2018) | 208 patients, 72 M and 136 F | 425 implants, follow-up for 8 to 10 years | Implant failure (personal criteria) Bruxism (no criteria) | Failure rate due to bruxism was 14.55% | Yes | Exclusion of risk patients Multiple variable assessment | No control group Undefined bruxism criteria |
Chatzopoulos and Wolff (2020) | 2127 patients mean Age ( 59.57) M 49.6 F 50.4 | 4519 implants follow-up (up to 76 month) | Bruxism (self-reported) implant failure (personal criteria) | Implant Failures is not associated with bruxism | no | Bruxism self-reported diagnosis Risk factors not weighted |