Next Article in Journal
Tone Decay Reconsidered: Preliminary Results of a Prospective Study in Hearing-Aid Users with Moderate to Severe Hearing Loss
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of Intraocular Lens Power Calculation Formulas Based on Artificial Intelligence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 2
10.3390/jcm13020499
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Hypertension and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Liljan Hamadé
1,†,
Salma El-Disoki
1,† and
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
2,*
1
Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, 214 21 Malmö, Sweden
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, 214 21 Malmö, Sweden
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(2), 499; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020499
Submission received: 24 December 2023 / Revised: 12 January 2024 / Accepted: 15 January 2024 / Published: 16 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Purpose: The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the influence of hypertension on the dental implant failure rate. Methods: An electronic search was undertaken in four databases, plus a manual search of journals. The I2 statistic was used to check heterogeneity and the inverse-variance method was used for the meta-analysis. The estimate of relative effect for dichotomous outcome was expressed as an odds ratio (OR). Results: The review included 24 publications. There were 4874 implants (257 failures) placed in hypertensive patients and 16,192 implants (809 failures) placed in normotensive patients. A pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in hypertensive patients did not have a higher risk of failure than implants placed in normotensive patients (OR 1.100, p = 0.671). The log OR of implant failure between hypertensive and normotensive patients did not significantly change with the follow-up time (p = 0.824). Conclusions: This review suggests that implants in hypertensive patients do not present higher odds of failure in comparison to normotensive patients. However, further research on this topic, with the use of more rigorous criteria to diagnose patients as being hypertensive, as well as clearer information about the pharmacological management of the condition in the patients, is recommended.

1. Introduction

Hypertension or high blood pressure is the condition in which blood pressure is high due to the high force of the circulating blood being continuously elevated in the walls of arteries [1]. The prevalence of hypertension among adults between 30 and 79 years of age in 2019 was 32% in women and 34% in men [2], making it one of the most common chronic medical conditions worldwide and a major cause of premature death worldwide. Its etiology is associated with genetic and behavioral factors, which include older age, obesity, physical inactivity, a diet with a high content of salt, the excessive consumption of alcohol, smoking, etc. [1]. The condition is usually called a “silent killer”, since most people with the condition do not experience any symptoms, and an estimated 46% of hypertensive adults are unaware that they have the condition [1].
Persistent high blood pressure without proper treatment may lead to angina, heart attacks, heart failure, irregular heartbeat, stroke, kidney damage, damage to the heart, and sudden death [1]. Moreover, there is evidence to suggest that the condition is associated with negative effects on bone health due to its connection with many biochemical and physiological pathways [3,4]. Hypertension may also have a negative effect on microvascular remodeling and angiogenesis [5].
The effects of hypertension on bone metabolism and angiogenesis raised questions regarding the condition, which poses a risk regarding oral rehabilitation with dental implants, since these two processes are important for the process of osseointegration, as well as the long-term maintenance of implants into bone [6,7]. The authors of a recent publication evaluated the possible influence of medications on dental implant osseointegration [8]. This study was, however, an umbrella review, without a focus on hypertension. In addition, reviews of this type cannot be completed without pre-existing reviews, and they do not include information regarding epidemiological associations not examined in the included reviews [9]. Another review, but a systematic one, was also published recently, which evaluated the possible effects of the condition on dental implants [10]. Nevertheless, the electronic search was restricted to two databases, and the authors limited the inclusion criteria to studies that reported the type of antihypertensive medication that was used, resulting in only three studies being included. Including such a small number of studies makes it difficult to draw any robust conclusion on the topic. The aim of the present systematic review was, therefore, to test the null hypothesis of there being no difference in the implant failure rates in hypertensive patients in comparison to normotensive patients against the alternative hypothesis of a difference, with more comprehensive inclusion criteria.

2. Materials and Methods

This study followed the PRISMA 2020 Statement guidelines [11]. Its registration number in PROSPERO is as follows: CRD42023487489.

2.1. Objective

The purpose of the present study was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates after the insertion of dental implants in patients with hypertension compared to the insertion in non-hypertense patients, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference, based on a systematic review of the literature. The question was elaborated using the participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes (PICO) format: In patients being rehabilitated with dental implants, what is the effect of hypertension on the implant failure rates in comparison to normotensive patients?

2.2. Search Strategies

An electronic search without time restrictions was first undertaken in August 2022, and the last update occurred in October 2023, in the following databases: PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ebsco. Due to the high number of initial entries, the search in Scopus was limited to ‘Article’ within the filter ‘Document type’. The following terms were used in the search strategies:
(“dental implant” OR “oral implant”) AND (hypertension OR high blood pressure)
A manual search of dental-implants-related journals was performed (the list of journals can be found in the Supplementary Material). A reference list of the identified studies and the relevant reviews on the subject were also checked for possible additional studies.

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The eligibility criteria included clinical human studies providing information on implant failure rates in hypertense and in normotensive individuals. Only the cases rehabilitated with cylindrical, screw-type, modern dental implants of titanium (c.p.Ti) or its alloys were considered. Exclusion criteria were case reports, technical reports, animal studies, in vitro studies, and review papers. Studies reporting cases rehabilitated with mini-implants, zygomatic, orthodontic, zirconia, subperiosteal, or hollow implants were also excluded.

2.4. Study Selection

The titles and abstracts of all reports identified through the electronic searches were read independently by the three authors. For studies appearing to meet the inclusion criteria, or for which there insufficient data were included in the title and abstract to make a clear decision, the full report was obtained. Disagreements were solved by discussion between the authors.

2.5. Quality Assessment

A quality assessment of the studies was executed according to the Quality Assessment Tool of the National Institutes of Health [12]. Studies of “good” quality were judged to have at least 7 points.

2.6. Definitions

A normal blood pressure level, or normotension, was defined as systolic and diastolic blood pressure lower than 120- and 80-mm Hg, respectively. High blood pressure, or hypertension, was defined as blood pressure equal or higher than 130/80 mm Hg [13].
An implant was considered a failure if signs and symptoms that led to implant removal, i.e., a lost implant, were present. Implant failure could be occur early (due to the host failing to establish or promote osseointegration at the early stages of healing) or late (due to either the failure of the established osseointegration or failure regarding the function of the dental implants) [14]. A fractured implant was also considered a failure [15].

2.7. Data Extraction

The following data were extracted: year of publication, study design, country, study setting, number of patients, patients’ age and sex, implant healing period, failed and placed implants in each group, implant system, jaws receiving implants (maxilla and/or mandible), smoking habit, and follow-up time. Authors were contacted to provide missing data was performed.

2.8. Meta-Analysis

Implant failure was the dichotomous outcome measure that was evaluated. The statistical unit for ‘implant failure’ was the implant. Whenever the outcomes of interest were not clearly stated, the data were not used for analysis. Heterogeneity was checked using the I2 statistic. The inverse variance method was used for the random-effects (heterogeneity p < 0.10) or fixed-effects model (heterogeneity p ≥ 0.10) [16]. The estimates of a relative effect for dichotomous outcomes were expressed as an odds ratio (OR).
In order to explore the possible heterogeneity of the effect between studies, a meta-regression was performed to verify how the OR was associated with the time of follow-up.
A funnel plot (plot of effect size versus standard error) was drawn.
The data were analyzed using the statistical software OpenMeta [Analyst], version 64-bit for Windows 10 [17]. The funnel plot was generated with the OpenMEE software, version 64-bit for Windows 10 [18].

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

The search process resulted in 889 papers (46 in PubMed/Medline, 44 in Web of Science, 722 in Scopus, 77 in Ebsco) (Figure 1). After the exclusion of 96 duplicate publications, an additional 693 articles were excluded, as the studies were not related to the subject. Then, 34 studies were excluded due to their containing one or more of the reasons for exclusion. Of the full-text reports of the remaining 66 articles including hypertensive patients (or patients with cardiovascular diseases) that were included in the study, the authors of 51 studies were contacted by e-mail up to three times, asking for missing information that was essential for the analyses, to which the authors of 36 publications did not reply. There was a lack of information concerning either the number of failures or the total number of implants in different groups in these 36 studies, and these publications were therefore excluded from the review. Eleven studies were excluded as they reported patients with “cardiovascular disease”, but did not specify whether or not hypertensive patients were included in this group. Hand-searching yielded 10 articles, of which 5 were eligible. Thus, 24 studies were included in the review. The list of the 81 excluded articles is presented in the Supplementary Material.

3.2. Description of the Studies

Table S1 (see Supplementary Material) presents detailed data of the 24 included studies [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42]. The articles were published between 2005 and 2021. Two of the studies were multicenter studies, whereas the other 22 studies were unicenter studies, 8 were prospective, and 16 were retrospective. Sixteen studies were conducted in a university, seven in private practices, and one study in dental public service.
The mean follow-up ± standard deviation of 16 studies was 30.0 ± 21.6 months (min–max, 6–85). For the other eight studies, there was neither information on the precise time of follow-up nor on the mean follow-up time.
Considering the studies, which included patients characterized as presenting hypertension, there were 4874 implants (257 failures) in hypertensive patients and 16,192 implants (809 failures) in normotensive patients.

3.3. Quality Assessment

All included studies were classified as “good” according to the quality assessment tool (Table S2, see Supplementary Material). In most cases, the main issues in the publications were related to statistical methods not being well described, and the inclusion of non-consecutive patients in the studies.

3.4. Meta-Analysis

A random-effects model was used, due to the heterogeneity between the groups of patients (τ2 = 0.526, Chi2 = 85.063, I2 = 72.961, p < 0.001). The pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants placed in hypertensive patients did not have a higher risk of failure than implants placed in normotensive patients, with an OR 1.100 (95% confidence interval, 0.709, 1.707, p = 0.671; Figure 2).

3.5. Meta-Regression

A meta-regression was performed with the 16 studies for which clear information about the follow-up time was provided, with the follow-up included as a covariate in relation to OR. It was observed that the OR did not significantly change with follow-up time (p = 0.824) (Figure 3). The linear regression equation of this meta-regression was as follows:
y = 0.065 − 0.002x
where:
Intercept = 0.065 (−0.650, 0.780), standard error 0.365, p = 0.858.
Follow-up = −0.002 (−0.021, 0.017), standard error 0.010, p = 0.824.
Jcm 13 00499 g003
Figure 3. Relationship between the log odds ratio (OR) of implant failure between hypertensive and normotensive patients and the follow-up time (in months). Every circle represents a study, and the size of the circle represents the weight of the study in the analysis. The blue line represents the fitted line plot.
Figure 3. Relationship between the log odds ratio (OR) of implant failure between hypertensive and normotensive patients and the follow-up time (in months). Every circle represents a study, and the size of the circle represents the weight of the study in the analysis. The blue line represents the fitted line plot.
Jcm 13 00499 g003

3.6. Publication Bias

The funnel plot did not show clear asymmetry (Figure 4), indicating the possible absence of publication bias.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this present systematic study was to compare the failure rate of dental implants within hypertensive to normotensive patients. According to the present results, it is suggested that the use of dental implants in hypertensive patients does not have higher odds of failure than their use in normotensive patients. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. This may come as a surprise, due to the known effects of high blood pressure on bone metabolism and angiogenesis.
High blood pressure leads to an elevation in the levels of angiotensin II, catecholamines, and the parathyroid hormone (PTH) [43], and the sustained elevation of PTH increases osteoclast formation and differentiation by upregulating the receptor activator of nuclear factor-κβ ligand (RANKL), which plays a critical role in adequate bone metabolism [44], which may contribute to bone resorption. To make matters worse, hypertension is connected to decreased intestinal absorption, increased urinary calcium excretion, and decreased plasma vitamin D concentrations, which all promote the continuous secretion of PTH [43]. The decreased intestinal calcium absorption and increased urinary calcium excretion result in stimulations in the expression of PTH and in increased skeletal calcium mobilization [45]. When it comes to the decreased vitamin D concentration in the plasma, this inhibits the proliferation of vascular smooth cells, vascular calcification, and the renin–angiotensin system [46,47]. Moreover, hypertension may probably result in low bone turnover, one of the mechanisms that could lead to osteoporosis [48]. All these effects have a negative impact on bone mass. More directly related to the dental field, the results of an animal study show that hypertension can alter the expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor-κβ (RANK), RANKL, and osteoprotegerin (OPG, which plays a role in the regulation of bone density), and delay the socket-bone-healing process after tooth extraction., which can exert an influence on some dental procedures, such as implant placement [49]. OPG, RANK, and RANKL are important mediators of bone metabolism, among other cell processes. During the process of bone metabolism, osteoblasts (cells that synthesize bone) modulate osteoclast (a bone cell that breaks down bone tissue) formation and bone resorption by producing OPG and RANKL. OPG then binds to RANKL, preventing it from binding to RANK [50,51], and subsequently inhibiting osteoclast maturation, resulting in the inhibition of osteoclastogenesis as well as lymphocyte development. Alterations in the quality of the mineralized tissue that is formed can occur as a result of any imbalances in the communication between the three factors [52].
Hypertension may also have a negative effect on microvascular circulation and angiogenesis [5]. Hypertension leads to loss of function of capillary endothelium and the constriction of microvessels, which may eventually disappear. High blood pressure has been shown to contribute to the development of microvascular rarefaction in animal models [53,54,55]. The resulting microvascular rarefaction may end up increasing peripheral resistance in the microcirculation, thereby reducing blood flow and reserve, and further elevating blood pressure [56,57,58]. In the microcirculation, the peripheral resistance rises, which, by reducing blood flow, remains normal and continues to increase blood pressure. Major clinical complications due to hypertension include myocardial ischemia, end-organ damage, and stroke, which have been suggested from the results of animal models [5]. Over the short period when hypertension develops, the microvascular refraction worsens or emerges. Hypertension or untreated blood pressure leads to the destruction of capillaries, harming microvessels, and accelerated pathogenic effects are observed in vascular rarefaction [5].
Although a potential factor affecting bone metabolism and microcirculation, and therefore potentially affecting osseointegration and the long-term maintenance of dental implants in the bone, the present results failed to suggest that hypertension may increase the odds of dental implant failure in relation to normotensive patients. This may be a real result, if there actually is no significant effect of hypertension on implant failure rates, or the results may not represent the truth. Unfortunately, there are still unanswered questions due to the lack of rigidity in the studies in classifying patients who have hypertension, if the patients are properly controlled for the condition (namely, the proper intake of anti-hypertensive medication, with effective clinical results), and if the patients presented with other cardiovascular diseases. More information needs to be taken into consideration on patients’ general health status and medication intake in clinical studies on dental implants. It would be unethical, however, to intentionally keep patients in a hypertensive status in order to verify the effect of hypertension on the implant failure rate.
The intake of antihypertensive drugs may be a factor counteracting the negative effects of high blood pressure in relation to bone. The results of some animal studies have suggested that the intake of antihypertensive drugs may reduce bone loss [59,60]. Some clinical studies have shown favorable results when antihypertensive medication is properly and regularly taken by the hypertensive patient, such as it slowing cortical bone loss [61], and having beneficial skeletal effects [62], although the positive benefits on cortical bone density could be small [63]. However, the results of these clinical studies were all observed in either elderly people or postmenopausal women. Other clinical studies failed to observe any benefits [64,65,66], or even observed negative effects of antihypertensive drugs on bone health [67]. Moreover, as previously mentioned, the studies included in the present review did not provide clear information about the controlled status of the patients concerning hypertension, and the majority of them also included young adults. Furthermore, the authors of a recent paper on the subject stated that the current evidence from existing observational studies and randomized trials is not sufficient to establish causal associations for the use of antihypertensive drugs with bone health outcomes [68].
In addition the low specificity concerning hypertension and the intake of antihypertensive drugs, another limitation of the present review includes the presence of confounding factors. For example, many studies reported the presence of a diabetic among the patients, as well as smokers, bruxers, patients submitted to radiotherapy of the head and neck region and/or chemotherapy, and patients taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or proton-pump inhibitors, or bisphosphonates, which are factors that may have a considerable impact on implant failure rates [69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]. Moreover, the implants were placed by different groups of operators, due to the different studies in which they were used, which may also negatively influence implant survival rates, due to variations in the surgeons’ technique, skills, and/or judgment [78]. Furthermore, many studies were retrospective, resulting in incomplete information being obtained, and several studies had small sample sizes and short follow-up periods.

5. Conclusions

The findings of the present review suggest that the use of dental implants in hypertensive patients does not present higher odds of failure in comparison to normotensive patients. Further research on this topic, with the use of more rigorous criteria to diagnose patients as being hypertensive, as well as clearer information about the pharmacological management of the condition in patients, is needed.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13020499/s1, List of journals included in the manual (hand) searching; List of excluded articles; Table S1. Detailed data of the included studies; Table S2. Quality assessment of the included studies, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.R.C.; methodology, L.H., S.E.-D. and B.R.C.; investigation, L.H., S.E.-D. and B.R.C.; writing—original draft, L.H., S.E.-D. and B.R.C.; formal analysis, B.R.C.; writing—review and editing, L.H., S.E.-D. and B.R.C.; visualization, B.R.C.; supervision, B.R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data resulting from this review are presented in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the following authors, who provided us with additional information about their studies (in alphabetical order according to surname): Sophia Muligeta Abraha, So-Young Choi, Fatih Coskunses, Ui-Won Jung, Chun-Teh Lee, Kwan-Joo Lee, Cláudio Rodrigues Leles, Miguel de Araújo Nobre, Panos N. Papapanou, Mario Romandini, Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos, Markus Schlee, Willem-Frederik Simons, Hendrik Terheyden, Yiqun Wu.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Hypertension. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/hypertension (accessed on 2 August 2023).
  2. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration. Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: A pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. Lancet 2021, 398, 957–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. El-Bikai, R.; Tahir, M.R.; Tremblay, J.; Joffres, M.; Šeda, O.; Šedová, L.; Awadalla, P.; Laberge, C.; Knoppers, B.M.; Dumas, P.; et al. Association of age-dependent height and bone mineral density decline with increased arterial stiffness and rate of fractures in hypertensive individuals. J. Hypertens. 2015, 33, 727–735; discussion 735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Wang, T.M.; Hsu, J.F.; Jee, W.S.; Matthews, J.L. Evidence for reduced cancellous bone mass in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Bone Miner. 1993, 20, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Humar, R.; Zimmerli, L.; Battegay, E. Angiogenesis and hypertension: An update. J. Hum. Hypertens. 2009, 23, 773–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Albrektsson, T.; Chrcanovic, B.; Östman, P.O.; Sennerby, L. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol. 2000 2017, 73, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Saghiri, M.A.; Asatourian, A.; Garcia-Godoy, F.; Sheibani, N. The role of angiogenesis in implant dentistry part I: Review of titanium alloys, surface characteristics and treatments. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2016, 21, e514–e525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. D’Ambrosio, F.; Amato, A.; Chiacchio, A.; Sisalli, L.; Giordano, F. Do Systemic Diseases and Medications Influence Dental Implant Osseointegration and Dental Implant Health? An Umbrella Review. Dent. J. 2023, 11, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Belbasis, L.; Bellou, V.; Ioannidis, J.P.A. Conducting umbrella reviews. BMJ Med. 2022, 1, e000071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mishra, S.K.; Sonnahalli, N.K.; Chowdhary, R. Do antihypertensive medications have an effect on dental implants? A systematic review. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2023. Online ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. NIH. Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Studies. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 15 January 2020).
  13. Whelton, P.K.; Carey, R.M.; Aronow, W.S.; Casey, D.E., Jr.; Collins, K.J.; Dennison Himmelfarb, C.; DePalma, S.M.; Gidding, S.; Jamerson, K.A.; Jones, D.W.; et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018, 71, e127–e248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Tonetti, M.S.; Schmid, J. Pathogenesis of implant failures. Periodontol. 2000 1994, 4, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Kisch, J.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Factors influencing the fracture of dental implants. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D. Principles of and procedures for systematic reviews. In Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-Analysis in Context; Egger, M., Smith, G.D., Altman, D.G., Eds.; BMJ Books: London, UK, 2003; pp. 23–42. [Google Scholar]
  17. Wallace, B.C.; Dahabreh, I.J.; Trikalinos, T.A.; Lau, J.; Trow, P.; Schmid, C.H. Closing the Gap between Methodologists and End-Users: R as a Computational Back-End. J. Stat. Softw. 2012, 49, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wallace, B.C.; Lajeunesse, M.J.; Dietz, G.; Dahabreh, I.J.; Trikalinos, T.A.; Schmid, C.H.; Gurevitch, J. OpenMEE: Intuitive, open-source software for meta-analysis in ecology and evolutionary biology. Methods Ecol. Evol. 2017, 8, 941–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Alsaadi, G.; Quirynen, M.; Komarek, A.; van Steenberghe, D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of late oral implant loss. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2008, 19, 670–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alsaadi, G.; Quirynen, M.; Michiles, K.; Teughels, W.; Komarek, A.; van Steenberghe, D. Impact of local and systemic factors on the incidence of failures up to abutment connection with modified surface oral implants. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2008, 35, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Altay, M.A.; Tozoğlu, S.; Yıldırımyan, N.; Özarslan, M.M. Is History of Periodontitis a Risk Factor for Peri-implant Disease? A Pilot Study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2018, 33, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bertl, K.; Ebner, M.; Knibbe, M.; Pandis, N.; Kuchler, U.; Ulm, C.; Stavropoulos, A. How old is old for implant therapy in terms of early implant losses? J. Clin. Periodontol. 2019, 46, 1282–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Cabrera-Domínguez, J.; Castellanos-Cosano, L.; Torres-Lagares, D.; Machuca-Portillo, G. A Prospective Case-Control Clinical Study of Titanium-Zirconium Alloy Implants with a Hydrophilic Surface in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, 1135–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Kisch, J.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Analysis of risk factors for cluster behavior of dental implant failures. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 632–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Coskunses, F.M.; Tak, Ö. Clinical performance of narrow-diameter titanium-zirconium implants in immediately loaded fixed full-arch prostheses: A 2-year clinical study. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2021, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Grandi, T.; Guazzi, P.; Samarani, R.; Garuti, G.; Grandi, G. Immediate loading of two unsplinted implants retaining the existing complete mandibular denture in elderly edentulous patients: 1-year results from a multicentre prospective cohort study. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2012, 5, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  27. Grandi, T.; Guazzi, P.; Samarani, R.; Grandi, G. Immediate loading of four (all-on-4) post-extractive implants supporting mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses: 18-month follow-up from a multicentre prospective cohort study. Eur. J. Oral Implantol. 2012, 5, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  28. Krennmair, S.; Weinländer, M.; Forstner, T.; Krennmair, G.; Stimmelmayr, M. Factors affecting peri-implant bone resorption in four Implant supported mandibular full-arch restorations: A 3-year prospective study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2016, 43, 92–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lee, C.T.; Tran, D.; Jeng, M.D.; Shen, Y.T. Survival rates of hybrid rough surface implants and their alveolar bone level alterations. J. Periodontol. 2018, 89, 1390–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lee, K.J.; Cha, J.K.; Sanz-Martin, I.; Sanz, M.; Jung, U.W. A retrospective case series evaluating the outcome of implants with low primary stability. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2019, 30, 861–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lobato, R.P.B.; Kinalski, M.A.; Martins, T.M.; Agostini, B.A.; Bergoli, C.D.; Dos Santos, M.B.F. Influence of low-level laser therapy on implant stability in implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized clinical trial. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2020, 22, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Malo, P.; de Araujo Nobre, M.; Lopes, A.; Ferro, A.; Botto, J. The All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 565–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Malo, P.; de Araujo Nobre, M.; Lopes, A.; Ferro, A.; Nunes, M. The All-on-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: A longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2019, 21, 538–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Moy, P.K.; Medina, D.; Shetty, V.; Aghaloo, T.L. Dental implant failure rates and associated risk factors. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2005, 20, 569–577. [Google Scholar]
  35. Park, J.C.; Baek, W.S.; Choi, S.H.; Cho, K.S.; Jung, U.W. Long-term outcomes of dental implants placed in elderly patients: A retrospective clinical and radiographic analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 186–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Park, S.H.; Song, Y.W.; Sanz-Martin, I.; Cha, J.K.; Lee, J.S.; Jung, U.W. Clinical benefits of ridge preservation for implant placement compared to natural healing in maxillary teeth: A retrospective study. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Schwartz-Arad, D.; Ofec, R.; Eliyahu, G.; Ruban, A.; Sterer, N. Long Term Follow-Up of Dental Implants Placed in Autologous Onlay Bone Graft. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 449–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Seki, K.; Hasuike, A.; Iwano, Y.; Hagiwara, Y. Influence of antihypertensive medications on the clinical parameters of anodized dental implants: A retrospective cohort study. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2020, 6, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Simons, W.F.; De Smit, M.; Duyck, J.; Coucke, W.; Quirynen, M. The proportion of cancellous bone as predictive factor for early marginal bone loss around implants in the posterior part of the mandible. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, 1051–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Singh, R.; Parihar, A.S.; Vaibhav, V.; Kumar, K.; Singh, R.; Jerry, J.J. A 10 years retrospective study of assessment of prevalence and risk factors of dental implants failures. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2020, 9, 1617–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, J.; Lerman, G.; Bittner, N.; Fan, W.; Lalla, E.; Papapanou, P.N. Immediate versus delayed temporization at posterior single implant sites: A randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2020, 47, 1281–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, X.; Al-Abedalla, K.; Eimar, H.; Arekunnath Madathil, S.; Abi-Nader, S.; Daniel, N.G.; Nicolau, B.; Tamimi, F. Antihypertensive Medications and the Survival Rate of Osseointegrated Dental Implants: A Cohort Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 1171–1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Perez-Castrillon, L.J.; Justo, I.; Sanz-Cantalapiedra, A.; Pueyo, C.; Hernandez, G.; Duenas, A. Effect of the Antihypertensive Treatment on the Bone Mineral Density and Osteoporotic Fracture. Curr. Hypertens. Rev. 2005, 1, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bellido, T.; Saini, V.; Pajevic, P.D. Effects of PTH on osteocyte function. Bone 2013, 54, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zittermann, A.; Schleithoff, S.S.; Koerfer, R. Putting cardiovascular disease and vitamin D insufficiency into perspective. Br. J. Nutr. 2005, 94, 483–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. London, G.M.; Guérin, A.P.; Verbeke, F.H.; Pannier, B.; Boutouyrie, P.; Marchais, S.J.; Mëtivier, F. Mineral metabolism and arterial functions in end-stage renal disease: Potential role of 25-hydroxyvitamin D deficiency. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2007, 18, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mosekilde, L. Vitamin D and the elderly. Clin. Endocrinol. 2005, 62, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hu, Z.; Yang, K.; Hu, Z.; Li, M.; Wei, H.; Tang, Z.; Chen, B.; Su, C.; Cai, D.; Xu, J. Determining the association between hypertension and bone metabolism markers in osteoporotic patients. Medicine 2021, 100, e26276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Manrique, N.; Pereira, C.C.; Luvizuto, E.R.; Sánchez Mdel, P.; Okamoto, T.; Okamoto, R.; Sumida, D.H.; Antoniali, C. Hypertension modifies OPG, RANK, and RANKL expression during the dental socket bone healing process in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015, 19, 1319–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shalhoub, V.; Faust, J.; Boyle, W.J.; Dunstan, C.R.; Kelley, M.; Kaufman, S.; Scully, S.; Van, G.; Lacey, D.L. Osteoprotegerin and osteoprotegerin ligand effects on osteoclast formation from human peripheral blood mononuclear cell precursors. J. Cell Biochem. 1999, 72, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Suda, T.; Takahashi, N.; Udagawa, N.; Jimi, E.; Gillespie, M.T.; Martin, T.J. Modulation of osteoclast differentiation and function by the new members of the tumor necrosis factor receptor and ligand families. Endocr. Rev. 1999, 20, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Simonet, W.S.; Lacey, D.L.; Dunstan, C.R.; Kelley, M.; Chang, M.S.; Lüthy, R.; Nguyen, H.Q.; Wooden, S.; Bennett, L.; Boone, T.; et al. Osteoprotegerin: A novel secreted protein involved in the regulation of bone density. Cell 1997, 89, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Prewitt, R.L.; Chen, I.I.; Dowell, R. Development of microvascular rarefaction in the spontaneously hypertensive rat. Am. J. Physiol. 1982, 243, H243–H251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hutchins, P.M.; Darnell, A.E. Observations of a decreased number of small arterioles in spontaneously hypertensive rats. Circ. Res. 1974, 34–35, 161–165. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sokolova, I.A.; Manukhina, E.B.; Blinkov, S.M.; Koshelev, V.B.; Pinelis, V.G.; Rodionov, I.M. Rarefication of the arterioles and capillary network in the brain of rats with different forms of hypertension. Microvasc. Res. 1985, 30, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Antonios, T.F.; Singer, D.R.; Markandu, N.D.; Mortimer, P.S.; MacGregor, G.A. Structural skin capillary rarefaction in essential hypertension. Hypertension 1999, 33, 998–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hansen-Smith, F.M.; Morris, L.W.; Greene, A.S.; Lombard, J.H. Rapid microvessel rarefaction with elevated salt intake and reduced renal mass hypertension in rats. Circ. Res. 1996, 79, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Serné, E.H.; Gans, R.O.; ter Maaten, J.C.; Tangelder, G.J.; Donker, A.J.; Stehouwer, C.D. Impaired skin capillary recruitment in essential hypertension is caused by both functional and structural capillary rarefaction. Hypertension 2001, 38, 238–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kang, K.Y.; Kang, Y.; Kim, M.; Kim, Y.; Yi, H.; Kim, J.; Jung, H.R.; Park, S.H.; Kim, H.Y.; Ju, J.H.; et al. The effects of antihypertensive drugs on bone mineral density in ovariectomized mice. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2013, 28, 1139–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ma, L.; Ji, J.L.; Ji, H.; Yu, X.; Ding, L.J.; Liu, K.; Li, Y.Q. Telmisartan alleviates rosiglitazone-induced bone loss in ovariectomized spontaneous hypertensive rats. Bone 2010, 47, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Reid, I.R.; Ames, R.W.; Orr-Walker, B.J.; Clearwater, J.M.; Horne, A.M.; Evans, M.C.; Murray, M.A.; McNeil, A.R.; Gamble, G.D. Hydrochlorothiazide reduces loss of cortical bone in normal postmenopausal women: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Med. 2000, 109, 362–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ott, S.M.; LaCroix, A.Z.; Scholes, D.; Ichikawa, L.E.; Wu, K. Effects of three years of low-dose thiazides on mineral metabolism in healthy elderly persons. Osteoporos. Int. 2008, 19, 1315–1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Bolland, M.J.; Ames, R.W.; Horne, A.M.; Orr-Walker, B.J.; Gamble, G.D.; Reid, I.R. The effect of treatment with a thiazide diuretic for 4 years on bone density in normal postmenopausal women. Osteoporos. Int. 2007, 18, 479–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. de Vries, F.; Pouwels, S.; Bracke, M.; Leufkens, H.G.; Cooper, C.; Lammers, J.W.; van Staa, T.P. Use of beta-2 agonists and risk of hip/femur fracture: A population-based case-control study. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 2007, 16, 612–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Levasseur, R.; Dargent-Molina, P.; Sabatier, J.P.; Marcelli, C.; Bréart, G. Beta-blocker use, bone mineral density, and fracture risk in older women: Results from the Epidemiologie de l’Osteoporose prospective study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2005, 53, 550–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Reid, I.R.; Gamble, G.D.; Grey, A.B.; Black, D.M.; Ensrud, K.E.; Browner, W.S.; Bauer, D.C. beta-Blocker use, BMD, and fractures in the study of osteoporotic fractures. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2005, 20, 613–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rejnmark, L.; Vestergaard, P.; Kassem, M.; Christoffersen, B.R.; Kolthoff, N.; Brixen, K.; Mosekilde, L. Fracture risk in perimenopausal women treated with beta-blockers. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2004, 75, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Canoy, D.; Harvey, N.C.; Prieto-Alhambra, D.; Cooper, C.; Meyer, H.E.; Åsvold, B.O.; Nazarzadeh, M.; Rahimi, K. Elevated blood pressure, antihypertensive medications and bone health in the population: Revisiting old hypotheses and exploring future research directions. Osteoporos. Int. 2022, 33, 315–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Al Ansari, Y.; Shahwan, H.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Diabetes Mellitus and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Materials 2022, 15, 3227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Dental Implants in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy: A Meta-Analysis. Implant. Dent. 2016, 25, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Kisch, J.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Is the intake of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors associated with an increased risk of dental implant failure? Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2017, 46, 782–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Kisch, J.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Intake of Proton Pump Inhibitors Is Associated with an Increased Risk of Dental Implant Failure. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, 1097–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Häggman-Henrikson, B.; Ali, D.; Aljamal, M.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Bruxism and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Oral Rehabil. 2023, 51, 202–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mustapha, A.D.; Salame, Z.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Smoking and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina 2021, 58, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Sulaiman, N.; Fadhul, F.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Bisphosphonates and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Materials 2023, 16, 6078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Dental implants in irradiated versus nonirradiated patients: A meta-analysis. Head Neck 2016, 38, 448–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Bredberg, C.; Vu, C.; Häggman-Henrikson, B.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Marginal bone loss around dental implants: Comparison between matched groups of bruxer and non-bruxer patients: A retrospective case-control study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2023, 25, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Kisch, J.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Impact of Different Surgeons on Dental Implant Failure. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2017, 30, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 13 00499 g001
Figure 1. Study screening process.
Figure 1. Study screening process.
Jcm 13 00499 g001
Jcm 13 00499 g002
Figure 2. Forest plot for the event ‘implant failure’ [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
Figure 2. Forest plot for the event ‘implant failure’ [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42].
Jcm 13 00499 g002
Jcm 13 00499 g004
Figure 4. Funnel plot.
Figure 4. Funnel plot.
Jcm 13 00499 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hamadé, L.; El-Disoki, S.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Hypertension and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020499

AMA Style

Hamadé L, El-Disoki S, Chrcanovic BR. Hypertension and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(2):499. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020499

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hamadé, Liljan, Salma El-Disoki, and Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic. 2024. "Hypertension and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 2: 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020499

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop