PB 001 POSTER WITH ORAL PRESENTATION IN IMPLANT

THERAPY OUTCOMES, PERI IMPLANT BIOLOGY ASPECTS

The effects of smoking cigarettes on the immediate dental implant stability in maxilla
Piotr Wychowanski1; Konrad Malkiewicz2; Martyna Osiak2; Przemysaw Kosewski2; Jarosaw Woliski2
1
Department of Oral Surgery Medical University of Warsaw, Poland; 2Poland

Background: Smoking cigarettes is proved to be an essential factor to diminish bone density and affecting the wound healing after oral surgery
procedures. Smoking cigarettes is stated as the crucial risk factor in implantoprosthetic treatment. The success ratio of implant therapy is higher
in non-smokers, when compared with the results of therapy conducted in smokers. The number of implants lost increases twofold in smokers
than in non-smokers.
Aim/Hypothesis: The aim of the study was to reveal if the smoking cigarettes affect the primary and the secondary dental implant stability im-
mediately inserted in fresh sockets after extraction in the maxilla.
Material and Methods: The study was conducted on 164 patients (74 males and 90 females) in the age of 27–71 year old (mean 49 year
old). 67 individuals smoked more than 10 cigarettes a day, 97 were non-smokers. 190 immediate implants were inserted in the maxilla (78 in
smokers and 112 in non-smokers). 129 implants were inserted in aesthetic region, 61 in no aesthetic region of the maxilla. All of the implants
healed successfully and remained stable in the period of 2 years follow-up. The primary and the secondary stability of the implants were
measured with the use of Periotest and the Osstell devices. Measurements were performed both in smokers and non-smokers in the day of
implantation, at the uncovering of the implant and 24 months after implantation. Osstell measurements at this time point were desisted due
to the cemented superstructures delivery.
Results: In the no aesthetic region PT values were higher in smokers both in the day of implantation (2.37 ± 0.2), 6 months after surgery
(0.2 ± 0.18,) as well as 24 months after surgery (−1.08 ± 0.18), when compared with non-smokers: (1.27 ± 0.3) (P < 0.05), (−0.91 ± 0.2) (P < 0.001)
and (−2.32 ± 0.2) (P < 0.0001) respectively. Smokers revealed lower ISQ values (60.04 ± 0.4) than non-smokers (62.9 ± 0.6), (P = 0.0047) in the
day of implantation as well as 6 months after implantation: (64.0 ± 0.5) and (67.2 ± 0.6) respectively, (P = 0.0002). There were no statistically sig-
nificant differences of the implant stability at the insertion time and 24 months after implantation in the aesthetic zone. The PT values at 6 months
were higher for smokers than non smokers (0.34 ± 0.12) and (0.0 ± 0.09) (P < 0.05) respectively. The ISQ values at the time of implantation did
not differ between smokers and non-smokers, the statistically significant differences were found 6 months after implant insertion (65.52 ± 5.05)
and (67.61 ± 5.109) (P = 0.0226) respectively. The statistically significant increase of ISQ values between implant insertion and uncovering time
was found in both groups (P < 0.0001).
Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The immediate implantation as a very highly specialist procedure may be affected by many conditions
including smoking habit. Within the limitation of this study we can conclude, that: 1. The primary implant stability achieved in this technique is
significantly lower in molar teeth region in smokers as compared with non-smokers. 2. The secondary implant stability achieved in immediate
implant insertion is lower both in aesthetic and no aesthetic regions of maxilla in smokers as compared with non-smokers. The lower implant
stability may affect osteointegration and long-term success of therapy.

228 | © 2017 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/clr Clin Oral Impl Res. 2017;28(Suppl. 14).
Research © 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S