Premium
Does Bruxism Contribute to Dental Implant Failure? A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Author(s) -
Zhou Yi,
Gao Jinxia,
Luo Le,
Wang Yining
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12300
Subject(s) - meta analysis , contraindication , confidence interval , medicine , odds ratio , dentistry , medline , dental implant , data extraction , implant failure , random effects model , study heterogeneity , implant , surgery , alternative medicine , pathology , political science , law
Background Bruxism was usually considered as a contraindication for oral implanting. The causal relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure was remained controversial in existing literatures. Purpose This meta‐analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between them. Materials and Methods This review conducted an electronic systematic literature search in MEDLINE ( P ub M ed) and E m B ase in N overmber 2013 without time and language restrictions. Meanwhile, a hand searching for all the relevant references of included studies was also conducted. Study information extraction and methodological quality assessments were accomplished by two reviewers independently. A discussion ensued if any disagreement occurred, and unresolved issues were solved by consulting a third reviewer. Methodological quality was assessed by using the N ewcastle‐ O ttawa S cale tool. Odds ratio ( OR ) with 95% confidence interval ( CI ) was pooled to estimate the relative effect of bruxism on dental implant failures. Fixed effects model was used initially; if the heterogeneity was high, random effects model was chosen for meta‐analysis. Statistical analyses were carried out by using R eview M anager 5.1. Results I n this meta‐analysis review, extracted data were classified into two groups based on different units. Units were based on the number of prostheses (group A ) and the number of patients (group B ). In group A , the total pooled OR of bruxers versus nonbruxers for all subgroups was 4.72 (95% CI : 2.66–8.36, p = .07). In group B , the total pooled OR of bruxers versus nonbruxers for all subgroups was 3.83 (95% CI : 2.12–6.94, p = .22). Conclusions This meta‐analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure. In contrast to nonbruxers, prostheses in bruxers had a higher failure rate. It suggests that bruxism is a contributing factor of causing the occurrence of dental implant technical/biological complications and plays a role in dental implant failure.