Table 3 Summary of studies assessing the role of bruxism in Prosthesis complications
From: Bruxism and implant: where are we? A systematic review
Study | Population | Intervention | Comparison | Outcome | Conclusion | Strength points | Weak points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anitua et al. (2017) | 67 patients mean age was 61 ± 10 years and 36 were females | 82 implants inserted to support 74 prostheses follow-up time was 117 ± 90 months | Obstructive sleep apnea patients Mechanical complication | Prosthetic complication is frequent in patients having an apnea or hypopnea index ≥ 5 | Yes | Bruxism diagnosed by polysomnography | Small sample |
Mikeli and Walter (2016) | 144 patients mean age 58.3 F 78 M 66 | 507 Implants supported prostheses | Bruxism (History and clinical examination) Mechanical complication in prostheses | Bruxism is a risk factor for implant borne prosthesis X3.6 | Yes | No follow up Risk factors not weighted Single variable analysis | |
Chochlidakis et al. (2020) | 37 patients 24 F (Mean age 64.54 ± 8.57 years) 13 M (Mean age 58.3 ± 12.47 years) | 271 moderately rough surface dental implants and 48 prostheses (24 maxillary and 24 mandibular arches) follow-up time 63.70 month ( mean) | Bruxism (History & clinical examination) Prosthetic complications (personal criteria) | Bruxism is significantly associated with loss of access hole material, screw loosening and minor chipping Hazard ratio 3.01 | Yes | Multiple variable Assessment Bruxism diagnosis based on clinical examination | No control group Risk factors not weighted Small sample |