Implant treatment in pharmacologically immunosuppressed liver transplant patients: A prospective‐controlled study

• Published in: Clinical oral implants research 2018-01, Vol.29 (1), p.28-35
• Main Authors: Paredes, Víctor, López‐Pintor, Rosa María, Torres, Jesús, Vicente, Juan Carlos, Sanz, Mariano, Hernández, Gonzalo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology; Bone loss; Case-Control Studies; Complications; Dental implants; Dental Implants - adverse effects; Dental materials; Dental prosthetics; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentistry; Dependent variables; Female; Humans; Immunocompromised Host; immunosuppresion; Immunosuppression; Immunosuppressive Agents - adverse effects; Immunosuppressive Agents - therapeutic use; Implants; Liver; Liver diseases; liver transplant; Liver Transplantation; Liver transplants; Male; Middle Aged; mucosal disturbances; Mucositis; Mucositis - etiology; Patients; Peri-Implantitis - etiology; Periodontics; peri‐implant mucositis; peri‐implantitis; Pharmacology; Postoperative Complications; Powder injection molding; Prospective Studies; Risk Factors; Survival; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 0905-7161; 1600-0501
• DOI: 10.1111/clr.13035

Objectives The main objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the long‐term outcome of implant therapy in liver transplant patients (LTP). The secondary goal was to assess several implant‐ and patient‐dependent variables, such as peri‐implantitis (PI), peri‐implant mucositis (PIM), bone loss (BL), and immediate postoperative complications. Material and methods Two groups, including 16 pharmacologically immunosuppressed LTP and 16 matched controls, received 52 and 54 implants, respectively, between 1999 and 2008. After evaluating the postoperative healing, a mean follow‐up of more than 8 years was carried out, and radiographic, clinical, and periodontal parameters were recorded to evaluate implant survival and implant‐ and patient‐dependent outcomes. Results The early postsurgical complications were similar in both groups. Implant survival rate was 100% in the LTP group and 98.15% in the CG. PIM was diagnosed in 35.42% of the implants and 64.29% of the patients of LTP group (LTPG) and in 43.40% of the implants and 56.25% of the patients in the CG. PI was detected in 4.17% of the implants and 7.10% of the patients in the LTPG and in 9.43% of the implants and 18.80% of the patients in the CG. Conclusion Pharmacologically immunosuppression in liver transplant patients was not a risk factor for implant failure, nor for the incidence of peri‐implant diseases. Liver transplant is not a contraindication for dental implant treatment, although these patients should be carefully monitored during follow‐up care.