Next Article in Journal
Carotid Body Tumor Excision with and without Carotid Artery Reconstruction: Equivalency of 30-Day Outcomes over 12 Years in the American College of Surgery National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Database
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluating and Comparing the Tensile Strength and Clinical Behavior of Monofilament Polyamide and Multifilament Silk Sutures: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Pleural Effusion following Yoga: A Report of Delayed Spontaneous Chylothorax and a Brief Review of Unusual Cases in the Literature
Previous Article in Special Issue
Dermal Cosmetic Migration after Lip Augmentation Procedure: Clinical Management and Histological Analysis in a Case Report with Review of the Literature
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Surgeries
Volume 5
Issue 2
10.3390/surgeries5020027
surgeries-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

The Effect of Antihypertensive Agents on Dental Implant Stability, Osseointegration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review

by
Dary Jones
1,
Rabia S. Khan
2,3,*,
John D. Thompson
4,
Cemal Ucer
2 and
Simon Wright
2
1
Pinderfields Hospital, Wakefield WF1 4DG, UK
2
ICE Postgraduate Dental Institute and Hospital, Mary Seacole Building, Frederick Road Campus, University of Salford, Broad St, Salford M6 6PU, UK
3
Faculty of Health and Medicine, Health Innovation One, Lancaster University, Sir John Fisher Dr, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AT, UK
4
University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Kendal LA9 7RG, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Surgeries 2024, 5(2), 297-341; https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020027
Submission received: 13 March 2024 / Revised: 18 April 2024 / Accepted: 19 April 2024 / Published: 29 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: Balance Between Innovative and Proven Procedures, Drugs and Materials)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Antihypertensive agents are commonly prescribed to manage hypertension and are known to be beneficial for bone formation and remodeling. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the impact that antihypertensive agents have on dental implant stability, osseointegration, and survival outcomes. A review of the literature was conducted using articles from 11 data sources. PRISMA guidelines were followed, and a PICO question was constructed. The search string “Antihypertensive* AND dental implant* AND (osseointegration OR stability OR survival OR success OR failure)” was used for all data sources where possible. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used for study appraisal, including the risk of bias. The search resulted in 7726 articles. After selection according to eligibility criteria, seven articles were obtained (one randomized control trial, two prospective cohort studies, three retrospective cohort studies, and a case control study). Five papers investigated the effects of antihypertensive agents on primary stability, but there were discrepancies in the method of assessment. Inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system was linked to higher primary stability. Secondary stability was usually higher than primary stability, but it is unknown if antihypertensive agents caused this. Survival outcomes were increased with certain antihypertensive agents. It is possible that inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system may lead to greater bone mineral density, improved primary stability, and improved survival outcomes although the effects on osseointegration are unknown. However, more research is needed to confirm this theory.

1. Introduction

In the UK, once over a third of the population was edentulous; this figure is now closer to 6% nowadays [1,2,3]. This has led many, particularly the older generation over 50, to explore dental implants as a replacement option for missing teeth [4,5,6]. Managing patients within this age bracket comes with a unique set of problems, which can include reduced plaque control, poor oral health, and polypharmacy [7,8,9,10,11]. Many commonly prescribed medications are known to have a negative effect on dental implants, such as proton pump inhibitors and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [12,13,14,15]. There is evidence to suggest that antihypertensive (AH) agents may also have an effect on dental implants [16,17].
AH agents are used for the management of hypertension. Hypertension refers to consistently raised blood pressure and can negatively affect health [18]. It increases the risk of heart, brain, and kidney damage, leading to poorer health outcomes (WHO, 2022). The World Health Organisation estimates that over 1.2 billion adults worldwide have hypertension, with almost half unaware they have the condition (WHO, 2022). The European Society of Hypertension and The European Society of Cardiology recommend five drug groups for the management of hypertension: Beta blocker (BB), Calcium channel blocker (CCB), Angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, and Thiazide diuretic (TD)
Previous research has shown interesting results regarding the use of AH agents and their effects on bone. Rejnmark et al. found beta blockers (BB), angiotensin covering enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers (CCB) were shown to have a protective effect on bony fracture [19]. There is also evidence to suggest that AH agents show anabolic properties regarding bone metabolism and can even increase bone mineral density within the mouth [20,21]. It is possible that this effect on bone may lead to improved osseointegration and overall survival.
When assessing the success of an implant [22], developed criteria that are recognized as the gold standard for implant survival. The five criteria described by (Albrektsson et al., 1986) [22] are as follows: No mobility, no evidence of periapical radiolucency as seen on a radiograph, vertical bone loss of <0.2 mm yearly after the first year of service, absence of signs of pain, infection, neuropathies, paraesthesia, or violation of the mandibular canal, success rate of 85% and 80% at the end of 5 years and 10 years of functioning
Stability and osseointegration of the implant are paramount to success, according to Albrektsson. Adequate primary stability improves the chances of successful osseointegration, leading to better outcomes [23]. Primary stability is achieved when an implant is firmly placed within the cortical bone. At this stage, the bone and implant are held together by friction instead of integration. Secondary stability, also known as osseointegration, occurs a few months later when the bone fuses with the implant. There are various methods to assess implant stability, including resonance frequency analysis and insertional torque testing for primary stability, and resonance frequency analysis, reverse torque testing, histologic analysis, and radiographs or computed tomography for secondary stability.
The aim of this review is to assess the impact AH agents have on dental implant stability, osseointegration, and survival outcomes through a review of the relevant literature. The rationale for this review emerges from clinical observations and a burgeoning interest in how systemic medications influence dental treatment outcomes. Specifically, the use of AH drugs has been associated with alterations in blood flow and angiogenesis, processes that are fundamental to the healing and integration of dental implants. Furthermore, the potential effects of AH drugs on bone metabolism and the inflammatory response present a complex interplay that could significantly impact implant success rates.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO CRD48209589262.

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The following eligibility criteria were developed for the review:

2.1.1. Inclusion

All adults (18 or over)
Any number of endosseous dental implants fitted within the maxilla or mandible
Research was published from October 2001–October 2024. This is to exclude older-design implants, such as those with smooth/polished surfaces or those without surface treatment [24,25,26].
Original studies (any prospective or retrospective cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, or randomized controlled trials looking at the effects of AH drugs on dental implants)
Any AH agent and its interaction with dental implants.

2.1.2. Exclusion

Letters/editorials
Posters
Prototype implants
Participants were under 18 years old at the time of the study
Animal studies
Studies are not conducted in English.
Case reports
Systematic reviews
Studies published before October 2001
Zygomatic and pterygoid implants
The following PICO framework was used to structure the clinical question:
Population: An adult population (over 18 years of age), of any medical background, undergoing treatment with any number of AH agents.
Intervention: Dental implants fitted within the maxilla or mandible to be restored with any prostheses.
Comparison: Individuals with dental implants who are not taking AH agents.
Outcomes: Effect on dental implant stability, osseointegration, and survival outcomes
Articles were divided into three groups for synthesis, depending on the content. The headings of these groups were: stability, osseointegration, and survival outcomes. Eleven databases plus relevant ‘grey’ literature and a manual search were identified as sources of information.
The following information sources were identified as containing relevant articles:
PubMed, Wiley Online Library, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, VHL Regional Portal, LILACS, Cochrane database, OVID, Dental Update, Journal of Dental Research, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science.

2.1.3. Search Strategy

In order to generate a useful search string, “Antihypertensive* AND dental implant* AND (osseointegration OR stability OR survival OR success OR failure)” was used for all databases but had to be adapted for Dental Update in order to obtain sufficient results. The search strategy for each information source is described above.
This revealed 7726 articles that could meet the aim of this study.
Studies were screened by title, abstract, full text available, and full text screening. The final report generated seven records for discussion. For a visualization of the selection process, please refer to the Prisma Flowchart at the end of this section (Figure 1).
The critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) was used for study appraisal, including the risk of bias. This system was used to assess the relevance of each paper. No papers were excluded after the CASP review. The primary outcomes of this review were to assess the effects of AH agents on dental implant stability, osseointegration, and longevity. The CASP tool version 2018 is used to systematically evaluate the trustworthiness, relevance, and results of published papers. The tool typically includes checklists that can be applied to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method research. These checklists help assess aspects like the clarity of research aims, appropriateness of methodology, transparency in reporting results, and significance of the findings, as can be seen in the Appendix A.

3. Results and Discussion

This review identified one randomized control trial, two prospective cohort studies, three retrospective cohort studies, and a case control study. These studies, along with their results, can be seen in Table 1. The selected study discussion will focus on three main sections: primary stability, secondary stability (osseointegration), and survival outcomes.
In performing the risk of bias assessment [27], the study displayed moderate risk due to limitations in the blinding of participants to the intervention.
Carr et al., 2019 [15] showed a low risk of bias; the study methodology was robust with clear data collection and analysis procedures.
Wu et al., 2016 [17] presented a high risk of bias due to selective reporting and incomplete outcome data. Seki et al., 2020 [28] demonstrated a low risk of bias with comprehensive data reporting and analysis.
Garcia-Denche et al., 2013 [29] displayed Moderate risk due to an inadequate sample size, which could affect the generalizability of the results. Malm et al., 2021 presented Low-risk: the study used a strong experimental design with clear, transparent reporting. Alam-Eldein et al., 2017 [30] noted a high risk due to potential conflicts of interest and a lack of participant blinding.
Table 1. (a) Study the characteristics of patients taking different classes of antihypertensive drugs with reference to their bone density, plaque, gingival index, probing depth, and marginal bone loss. (b) Effect of antihypertensive drugs on primary and secondary stability and their effect on implant survival, success, and failure.
Table 1. (a) Study the characteristics of patients taking different classes of antihypertensive drugs with reference to their bone density, plaque, gingival index, probing depth, and marginal bone loss. (b) Effect of antihypertensive drugs on primary and secondary stability and their effect on implant survival, success, and failure.
(a)
Authors and Publication YearStudy TypeAimAntihypertensives InvestigatedNumber of ImplantsNumber of ParticipantsBone Density/Formation/QualityPlaque Control IndexGingival IndexProbing DepthMarginal Bone Loss
Saravi et al. (2021) [27]Retrospective cohortInvestigate antihypertensive drug use on primary and secondary implant stabilityBBs, RAS inhibitors, combination377196 Not mentionedNot mentionedNot measuredNot measuredNot measured
Wu et al. (2016) [17]Retrospective cohortInvestigate the association between antihypertensive drugs and the survival rate of osseointegrated implantsBB, TD, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, other drugs (not specifically mentioned)1499728Not mentionedNot mentionedNot measuredNot measuredNot measured
Carr et al. (2019) [15]Prospective cohortIdentify associations between implant failure and medication use in a cohort of consecutive patientsCCBNot mentioned548Not mentionedNot mentionedNot measuredNot measuredNot measured
Seki et al. (2020) [28]Retrospective cohortInvestigate the effect of antihypertensive agents on peri-implant healthCCB, ARB, TD, combination7735Not mentionedAH > HNUAH > HNUAH > HNUAH > HNU
García-Denche et al. (2013) [29]Split mouth, two arm randomized control trialTo evaluate the effect of membrane coverage on antrostomy defects on implant survival in sinus lift proceduresNot mentionedTwo arm study—278 implantsTwo arm study—104 participants, Split mouth group—5Mean new bone percentage was greater when membrane was used (19 ± 6) compared to not used (15 ± 5)Not mentionedNot measuredNot measuredNot measured
Malm et al. (2021) [31]Retrospective case controlTo identify possible risk factors for early implant failureNot mentioned25,825182Bone volume odds ratio 9.07, p < 0.05
Bone quality 1.53, p > 0.3		Not mentionedNot measuredNot measuredNot measured
Alam-Eldein et al. (2017) [30]Prospective cohortTo compare the effects of Calcium channel-blocking agents (Amlodipine) and angiotensin receptor blockers (Valsartan) on dental implant healthCCB (amlodipine), ARB (valsartan)4020Not mentionedARB has better plaque control than CCB (trend from insertion to 24-month review)ARB has less gingival bleeding than CCB (trend from insertion to 24-month review)ARB has reduced probing depths than CCB (trend from insertion to 24-month review)ARB has less marginal bone loss than CCB (trend from insertion to 24-month review)
(b)
Authors and Publication YearMeasure of StabilityPrimary StabilitySecondary Stability/OsseointegrationEffect on Success, Survival or FailureFollow Up
Saravi et al. (2021) [27]Resonance frequency analysis (ISQ, Ostell)
High—>70
Medium—60–69
Low—<60		HNU—71.8 ± 8.7
AH—74.1 ± 5.6
Subgroups:
BB—71.7 ± 5.4
Combined 77 ± 5.5
RAAS Inhibitor 74.52 ± 5.2		HNU—73.7 ± 8.1
AH—75.7 ± 5.9
Subgroups:
BB—72 ± 6.4
Combined 78.36 ± 5.1
RAAS Inhibitor 76.64 ± 5.6		Not mentioned120 days
Wu et al. (2016) [17]Insertional torqueAH users had 218 implants (66.7%) > 35 Ncm IT and 105 implants (32.1%) had <35 Ncm IT.
HNU had 721 (61.5%) > 35 Ncm while 369 implants (31.5) < 3 5 Ncm. AH > IT		Not mentionedAH 99.6% survival
HNU—96.9% survival		17.1 months
Carr et al. (2019) [15]Not mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedCCB not associated with improved survival outcomes or increased risk of failureMedian—5.8 years for surviving implants and 0.6 years for implant failure
Seki et al. (2020) [28]Not mentionedNot mentionedNot mentionedNot mentioned7 years 1 month
García-Denche et al. (2013) [29]Not mentionedSimultaneous implant placement is less likely to achieve primary stability compared to a delayed approach (odds ratio 15.53 p < 0.04)Not mentionedSuccess with AH—89%
Success without AH—87%		12 years
Malm et al. (2021) [31]Not mentionedLow primary stability associated with increased likelihood of early implant failure (odds ratio 3.04 p < 0.001)Not mentionedNo link between AH and early implant failure1 year
Alam-Eldein et al. (2017) [30]RFA (ISQ, Ostell)
Values < 50 have a greater risk of failure		ARB—56.025 ± 3.206
CCB—55.625 ± 4.428		6 months—ARB—58 ± 3.424, CCB—57.57 ± 3.238
12 months—ARB—58.975 ± 5.2223, CCB—58.075 ± 6.442
24 months—ARB—60.2 ± 3.4, CCB—60.1 ± 2.768		No implants lost in study. No association of CCB/ARB with increased risk of failure24 months

3.1. Primary Stability

Five of the seven papers identified in this review investigated the effect of primary stability on dental implants [17,27,29,30,31]. Primary stability is the wedging effect that occurs when an implant is initially placed in bone. The implant is held by frictional forces rather than osseointegration, which occurs during secondary stability. Saravi et al. [27] and Alam-Eldein et al. [30] assessed primary stability by resonance frequency analysis, while Wu et al. used the insertional torque test [17].
Wu et al. [17] report that insertional torque is not associated with an increased risk of implant failure when comparing those medicated with AH agents to HNU. Approximately one-third of the AH and HNU cohorts had an insertional torque of <35 Ncm, while the remaining two-thirds had >35 Ncm. As a result of both groups experiencing the same ratios of insertional torque, this was not shown to have an effect on survival outcomes.
Studies conducted by Malm et al. [31] and Garcia-Denche et al. [29] report that participants were medicated on AH agents, so no deductions can be made relating to AH use. Alam-Eldein et al. [30] and Saravi et al. [27] investigated primary stability using resonance frequency analysis. Both studies concluded that patients medicated on ARBs had higher primary stability than the comparison groups. Only the results obtained by Saravi et al. [27] were shown to be statistically significant. These results should be viewed with caution due to the low number of ARBs included within their sample (9/22) with the remainder being ACE inhibitors. This would suggest that improvements in stability could be linked to inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS).
Saravi et al. [27] demonstrated that diameter was shown to be a statistically significant factor leading to increased implant stability (4.1 mm/4 mm > less than 4 mm). Other factors linked to improved stability are the type of implant (Straumann > Thommen) and region placed (maxilla > mandible). The higher primary stability achieved by the ARB group could be explained by these factors, as 93.5% of implants within this group had a diameter of 4 mm/4.1 mm when compared to 81.9% in HNU. This is supported by Barikani et al. [32], who found that increasing implant diameter from a narrow platform (3.4 mm) to regular (4.3 mm) led to an increase in the implant stability quotient. Interestingly, in their study, they found this relationship did not exist when further increasing a regular platform to a wide platform and incurred a decrease in stability. This may be explained by a loss of available bone by increasing the width of the osteotomy. This could also explain the difference in values obtained from Saravi et al. [27] and Alam-Eldein et al. [30], as Alam-Eldein et al. [30] used narrow-diameter implants, which led to a reduction in stability when compared to Saravi et al. [27]. A comparison of the two would suggest that implant diameter has an effect on primary stability. While the effect of AH agents is still controversial, it is likely that inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system by renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors will have an effect on bone remodeling.

3.2. Secondary Stability (Osseointegration)

Secondary stability (osseointegration) was assessed by Alam-Eldein et al. [30] and Saravi et al. [27] using resonance frequency analysis. The results of both studies demonstrated that secondary stability is greater than primary stability when the implant has successfully osseointegrated. This is likely due to the remodeling process that occurs during osseointegration, which anchors the implant to bone. Both studies did not include a histologic analysis as part of their measure of osseointegration, and so we are unable to measure the bone-to-implant contact percentage of the implants, but its relevance to osseointegration should be discussed.
Folkman et al. [33] found that bone-to-implant contact increased over a 3 week period in implants placed in rabbit tibias. It is not clear whether this increase in contact percentage led to an increase in secondary stability, as this was not an outcome measure. Jung et al. [34] evaluated the contact percentage of implants used as anchorage devices for orthodontic treatment. They found that 42% is enough to establish and maintain osseointegration. The implants used in the study were under relatively low forces, 2 N–6 N, compared to implants used to functionally replace teeth [34]. Interestingly, the contact percentage of implants within this study was not dissimilar to those reported by Linares et al. [35], who measured bone-to-implant contact in immediate and early-loaded implants in an animal model. Based on these studies, it is unclear if loading forces have a positive effect on contact percentage, although we can postulate that a larger contact percentage would lead to higher levels of stability and greater osseointegration.
Several factors have been linked to increased secondary stability, such as healing time and primary stability [36]. Secondary stability takes around 4 weeks to occur, during which time a decrease in implant stability is known to occur, known as the ‘stability gap’ [37]. During this time, the bone remodels and is relatively weak compared to fully mineralized bone. Failure is more likely to occur due to the increased micromotion experienced by the implant, and so higher ISQ values are better able to withstand these destabilizing forces [38,39]. Achieving an implant stability quotient between 60 and 70 can reduce micromotions by 50%, allowing for better osseointegration [30]. Alam-Eldein et al. [30] used immediate loading for their implants, while Saravi et al. [27] used implants that were buried until exposure. Immediately loaded implants would be expected to experience greater micromotion and failure, which did not occur in this study. This expectation would be enhanced by a low implant stability quotient (ISQ) at placement (<60), but could be accounted for by the small number of implants used within the study [32] or low occlusal forces acting on the implants by an upper complete denture (which was constructed alongside the lower implant-supported denture), and so this may not be a reliable assessment of results.
Both studies gave adequate time to allow osseointegration to occur. Saravi et al. [27] measured secondary stability at 117 ± 56.6 days, while Alam-Eldein et al. [30] reviewed stability measurements at 6 month intervals up to 2 years. In both studies, implant stability quotient values increased over time. Saravi et al. [27] showed that renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors had the highest ISQ values (outside of the combined group, which failed to reach significance due to a low sample), which echoed results from Alam-Eldein et al. [30]. This is similar to the primary ISQ results obtained during the assessment of primary stability. This is logical, as primary stability is an excellent predictor of secondary stability and osseointegration [40,41].

3.3. Survival Outcomes

Five papers considered the link between AH agents and survival outcomes [17,27,29,30,31]. Wu et al. [17] and Garcia-Denche et al. [29] found that patients who were medicated on AH agents had improved survival outcomes when compared to those who were unmedicated, and it could be due to the possibility that the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system is actually the cause of these changes in the bone cellular capacity in favor of implant integration, Garcia-Denche et al. [29] do not reveal which agents were included in their study, which limits further discussion on the effect of each subgroup.
Reported long-term survival rates of dental implants range from 93.3 to 98% [42,43,44]. The survival rate of those medicated on AH agents (99.6%) in the study by Wu et al. [17] exceeds this range, but this may be explained by a smaller sample size and reduced follow-up time. Those unmedicated reached a survival rate of 96.9%, which is within the parameters of a good survival outcome. One possible risk of medicating a normotensive person would be the increased risk of hypotension and resultant falls. Although the literature would suggest those medicated with certain AH agents would have a reduced risk of a bony fracture, the patient would still be liable for other risks of falling: skin abrasions, lacerations, head injuries, etc. These risks may not outweigh the benefits of medication, considering the high survival rate regardless of treatment. It is worth noting that the survival rates of both AH users/HNU were significantly lower in the trial by Garcia-Denche et al. [29] when compared to Wu et al. [17].
Garcia-Denche et al. [29] opted for a combination of simultaneous and delayed implant placement. It is accepted that it is more difficult to achieve adequate levels of primary stability during simultaneous placement when compared to a delayed approach due to the differing levels of bone density, and as such, we would expect studies consisting exclusively of simultaneous placement to have relatively low levels of implant survival. However, it is worth noting that immediate implant placement offers several advantages over a delayed approach, such as reduced overall surgical time, which is beneficial to both clinician and patient. It also allows a relative preservation of both hard and soft tissue, although some reduction is to be expected due to the loss of the periodontal ligament, which acts as a blood supply for the surrounding tissue [45,46].
Cha et al. [47] managed to achieve a survival rate of 98.91% during a follow-up period of 57.1 months—nearly five times longer than Garcia-Denche et al. [29]. The differences between the two studies may be explained by the sample size. Garcia-Denche et al. [28] included 19 patients who were medicated on AH agents while 85 were not. In comparison, Cha et al. [47] recruited 161 patients. A small sample results in each patient representing a larger overall percentage of the total, and so failures have a greater effect on overall survival, thus increasing the effects of sample bias. Wu et al. [17] included five subgroups of AH agents: ACE inhibitors, ARBs, TDs, BBs, and “other drugs”. Interestingly, 54% of patients included in the study were medicated on RAAS inhibitors (which include ACE inhibitors and ARBs). It is prudent to remember that previous studies have found that inhibition of the RAAS has been linked to greater implant stability, which in turn leads to better osseointegration and improved survival outcomes [24,25,30]. It could be that including a large proportion of RAAS inhibitors led to greater survival outcomes. However, the patients within this study were followed up for just over 17 months, so mid- to long-term survival is unknown.
Malm et al. [31], in their case control study, found that AH agents were not linked to early implant failure (failure within 1 year of functioning). Small numbers were included in both the AH group and the control group, which limits the validity of the results. Furthermore, the study was a case control, so a causal link cannot be produced.
Carr et al. [15] and Alam-Eldein et al. [25] both found that CCBs were not linked to an increased risk of implant failure. Alam-Eldein et al. [30] included a relatively low, heterogeneous sample size of 20 males, while [15] included an improved sample of 548 men and women. Carr et al. [15] do not include any data regarding region of placement, implant length/diameters, loading protocol, or bone quality, all of which have an effect on implant survival. As such, it is difficult to explore any reasons behind their results. The results by Alam-Eldein et al. [30] may be explained by all implants being placed within the mandible, which, as discussed earlier, has a higher chance of survival than the maxilla. All implants were fitted with an overdenture and occluded against an upper denture, which, due to the reduced contact forces when compared to natural teeth, is favorable for success [23]. Additionally, Mishra et al. 2023 [48], in their systematic review, aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of dental implants in individuals using antihypertensive medications versus non-users. The databases suggested by studies involved a total of 959 patients, primarily using renin–angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors. Findings indicated that the implant survival rate was notably higher in users of antihypertensive medications (99.4%) compared to non-users (96.1%). Additionally, a study within this review reported greater implant stability quotient (ISQ) scores in medicated patients (75.7 ± 5.9) than in non-medicated patients (73.7 ± 8.1). Despite these positive outcomes, the evidence remains limited and heterogeneous, particularly regarding the specific types of antihypertensive medications used. As such, more targeted research is necessary to isolate the effects of different antihypertensive drugs on dental implant success and stability [48].
The varying levels of risk of bias across the studies critically influence the systematic review’s overall conclusions. For studies like Wu et al., 2016 [17], and Alam-Eldein et al., 2017 [30], the high risk of bias might undermine the reliability of their conclusions, suggesting a potential overestimation or underestimation of the treatment effects. Conversely, studies with a low risk of bias, such as Carr et al., 2019 [15], and Malm et al., 2021 [31], provide stronger evidence and add more weight to the systematic review’s findings. The mixed levels of bias underscore the necessity for cautious interpretation of the overall evidence and highlight the importance of considering bias in the aggregation of study results [48].

4. Conclusions

It is possible that inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system may lead to greater bone mineral density, improved primary stability, and improved survival outcomes for dental implants. There are, however, several animal studies that indicate that AH agents, especially BBs such as propranolol, may increase the amount of BIC experienced during. This will likely lead to a stable implant due to increased surface attachment and may possibly have an effect on long-term survival. More research is required to investigate the effects of antihypertensive drugs on the higher survival rate of dental implants.
The potential inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system may contribute to an increase in bone mineral density, which could enhance the primary stability and survival outcomes of dental implants.
The findings indicate that inhibition of the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system is positively associated with the higher primary stability of dental implants. While secondary stability generally exceeded primary stability, the direct influence of antihypertensive agents on this aspect remains unclear. Moreover, some antihypertensive agents were associated with improved survival outcomes for implants. Despite these promising results, discrepancies in the assessment methods of primary stability and limited data on osseointegration highlight the need for further research. Future studies should aim to standardize evaluation techniques and expand the understanding of how antihypertensive agents affect implant success over time.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, D.J.; software, C.U. and J.D.T.; validation, R.S.K., S.W. and D.J.; formal analysis, D.J.; resources, C.U. and J.D.T.; writing—original draft preparation, S.W. and R.S.K.; writing—review and editing, J.D.T. and S.W.; visualisation, C.U. and R.S.K.; supervision, R.S.K. and J.D.T.; project administration, C.U. and S.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. (Saravi et al., 2021) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i001
Surgeries 05 00027 i002
Surgeries 05 00027 i003
Surgeries 05 00027 i004
Surgeries 05 00027 i005
Surgeries 05 00027 i006

Appendix A.2. (Carretal., 2019) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i007
Surgeries 05 00027 i008
Surgeries 05 00027 i009
Surgeries 05 00027 i010
Surgeries 05 00027 i011
Surgeries 05 00027 i012

Appendix A.3. (Wu et al., 2016) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i013
Surgeries 05 00027 i014
Surgeries 05 00027 i015
Surgeries 05 00027 i016
Surgeries 05 00027 i017
Surgeries 05 00027 i018

Appendix A.4. (Seki et al., 2020) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i019
Surgeries 05 00027 i020
Surgeries 05 00027 i021
Surgeries 05 00027 i022
Surgeries 05 00027 i023
Surgeries 05 00027 i024

Appendix A.5. (Garcia-Denche et al., 2013) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i025
Surgeries 05 00027 i026
Surgeries 05 00027 i027

Appendix A.6. (Malm et al., 2021) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i028
Surgeries 05 00027 i029
Surgeries 05 00027 i030
Surgeries 05 00027 i031
Surgeries 05 00027 i032

Appendix A.7. (Alam-Eldein et al., 2017) CASP Appraisal

Surgeries 05 00027 i033
Surgeries 05 00027 i034
Surgeries 05 00027 i035
Surgeries 05 00027 i036
Surgeries 05 00027 i037
Surgeries 05 00027 i038

References

  1. Steele, J.G.; Treasure, E.T.; O’Sullivan, I.; Morris, J.; Murray, J.J. Adult Dental Health Survey 2009: Transformations in British oral health 1968–2009. Br. Dent. J. 2012, 213, 523–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Shah, R.J.; Diwan, F.J.; Diwan, M.J.; Chauhan, V.J.; Agrawal, H.S.; Patel, G.C. A study of the emotional effects of tooth loss in an edentulous Gujarati population and its association with depression. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2015, 15, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Matsuyama, Y.; Jürges, H.; Dewey, M.; Listl, S. Causal effect of tooth loss on depression: Evidence from a population-wide natural experiment in the USA. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2021, 30, e38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bornstein, M.M.; Halbritter, S.; Harnisch, H.; Weber, H.-P.; Buser, D. A retrospective analysis of patients referred for implant placement to a specialty clinic: Indications, surgical procedures, and early failures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2008, 23, 1109–1116. [Google Scholar]
  5. Sato, Y.; Kitagawa, N.; Isobe, A. Current Consensus of Dental Implants in the Elderly—What Are the Limitations? Current Oral Health Reports. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2020, 7, 321–326. [Google Scholar]
  6. Schimmel, M.; Müller, F.; Suter, V.; Buser, D. Implants for elderly patients. Periodontology 2017, 73, 228–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ellefsen, B.S.; Morse, D.E.; Waldemar, G.; Holm-Pedersen, P. Indicators for root caries in Danish persons with recently diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease. Gerodontology 2012, 29, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Compton, S.M.; Clark, D.; Chan, S.; Kuc, I.; Wubie, B.A.; Levin, L. Dental Implants in the Elderly Population: A Long-Term Follow-up. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Martimbianco, A.L.C.; Prosdocimi, F.C.; Anauate-Netto, C.; dos Santos, E.M.; Mendes, G.D.; Fragoso, Y.D. Evidence-Based Recommendations for the Oral Health of Patients with Parkinson’s Disease. Neurol. Ther. 2021, 10, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zenthöfer, A.; Schröder, J.; Cabrera, T.; Rammelsberg, P.; Hassel, A.J. Comparison of oral health among older people with and without dementia. Community Dent. Health 2014, 31, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Kaufman, D.W.; Kelly, J.P.; Rosenberg, L.; Anderson, T.E.; Mitchell, A.A. Recent Patterns of Medication Use in the Ambulatory Adult Population of the United States The Slone Survey. JAMA 2002, 287, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Wu, X.; Al-Abedalla, K.; Abi-Nader, S.; Daniel, N.G.; Nicolau, B.; Tamimi, F. Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Risk of Osseointegrated Dental Implant Failure: A Cohort Study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 19, 222–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Altay, M.A.; Sindel, A.; Ozalp, O.; Yıldırımyan, N.; Kocabalkan, B. Proton pump inhibitor intake negatively affects the osseointegration of dental implants: A retrospective study. J. Korean Assoc. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 45, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Wu, X.; Al-Abedalla, K.; Rastikerdar, E.; Abi Nader, S.; Daniel, N.G.; Nicolau, B.; Tamimi, F. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and the risk of osseointegrated implant failure: A cohort study. J. Dent. Res. 2014, 93, 1054–1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Carr, A.B.; Gonzalez, R.L.V.; Jia, L.; Lohse, C.M. Relationship between Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors and Risk of Dental Implant Failure. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Chappuis, V.; Avila-Ortiz, G.; Araújo, M.G.; Monje, A. Medication-related dental implant failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2018, 29, 55–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wu, X.; Al-Abedalla, K.; Eimar, H.; Madathil, S.A.; 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]
  18. Scully, C. Medical Problems in Dentistry; Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier: Edinburgh, UK, 2014; pp. 111–113. [Google Scholar]
  19. Rejnmark, L.; Vestergaard, P.; Mosekilde, L. Treatment with beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, and calcium-channel blockers is associated with a reduced fracture risk: A nationwide case-control study. J. Hypertens. 2006, 24, 581–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Takeda, S.; Elefteriou, F.; Levasseur, R.; Liu, X.; Zhao, L.; Parker, K.L.; Armstrong, D.; Ducy, P.; Karsenty, G. Leptin regulates bone formation via the sympathetic nervous system. Cell 2002, 111, 305–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Togari, A.; Arai, M. Pharmacological topics of bone metabolism: The physiological function of the sympathetic nervous system in modulating bone resorption. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 2008, 106, 542–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Albrektsson, T.; Zarb, G.; Worthington, P.; Eriksson, A.R. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac Implant. 1986, 1, 11–25. [Google Scholar]
  23. Javed, F.; Ahmed, H.B.; Crespi, R.; Romanos, G.E. Role of primary stability for successful osseointegration of dental implants: Factors of influence and evaluation. Interv. Med. Appl. Sci. 2013, 5, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Buser, D.; Weber, H.P.; Lang, N.P. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 1990, 1, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Lang, N.P.; Jepsen, S.; Working, G. Implant surfaces and design (Working Group 4). Clin. Oral. Implant. Res. 2009, 20 (Suppl. S4), 228–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Shalabi, M.M.; Gortemaker, A.; Van’t Hof, M.A.; Jansen, J.A.; Creugers, N.H. Implant surface roughness and bone healing: A systematic review. J. Dent. Res. 2006, 85, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Saravi, B.; Vollmer, A.; Lang, G.; Adolphs, N.; Li, Z.; Giers, V.; Stoll, P. Impact of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and beta-blockers on dental implant stability. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2021, 7, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. 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] [PubMed]
  29. Garcia-Denche, J.T.; Wu, X.; Martinez, P.P.; Eimar, H.; Ikbal, D.J.; Hernandez, G.; Lopez-Cabarcos, E.; Fernandez-Tresguerres, I.; Tamimi, F. Membranes over the lateral window in sinus augmentation procedures: A two-arm and split-mouth randomized clinical trials. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2013, 40, 1043–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Alam-Eldein, A.M.; Mabrouk, E.A. Effect of calcium channel-blockers on clinical outcomes of implant retained overdenture in hypertensive patients. Egypt. Dent. J. 2017, 63, 949–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Malm, M.O.; Jemt, T.; Stenport, V.F. Patient factors related to early implant failures in the edentulous jaw: A large retrospective case-control study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2021, 23, 466–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Barikani, H.; Rashtak, S.; Akbari, S.; Badri, S.; Daneshparvar, N.; Rokn, A. The effect of implant length and diameter on the primary stability in different bone types. J. Dent. 2013, 10, 449–455. [Google Scholar]
  33. Folkman, M.; Becker, A.; Meinster, I.; Masri, M.; Ormianer, Z. Comparison of bone-to-implant contact and bone volume around implants placed with or without site preparation: A histomorphometric study in rabbits. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 12446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Jung, B.A.; Yildizhan, F.; Wehrbein, H. Bone-to-implant contact of orthodontic implants in humans—A histomorphometric investigation. Eur. J. Orthod. 2008, 30, 552–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Liñares, A.; Mardas, N.; Dard, M.; Donos, N. Effect of immediate or delayed loading following immediate placement of implants with a modified surface. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2011, 22, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Vollmer, A.; Saravi, B.; Lang, G.; Adolphs, N.; Hazard, D.; Giers, V.; Stoll, P. Factors Influencing Primary and Secondary Implant Stability—A Retrospective Cohort Study with 582 Implants in 272 Patients. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 8084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sachdeva, A.; Dhawan, P.; Sindwani, S. Assessment of Implant Stability: Methods and Recent Advances. Br. J. Med. Med. Res. 2016, 12, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Pagliani, L.; Sennerby, L.; Petersson, A.; Verrocchi, D.; Volpe, S.; Andersson, P. The relationship between resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and lateral displacement of dental implants: An in vitro study. J. Oral Rehabil. 2013, 40, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Makary, C.; Rebaudi, A.; Sammartino, G.; Naaman, N. Implant primary stability determined by resonance frequency analysis: Correlation with insertion torque, histologic bone volume, and torsional stability at 6 weeks. Implant Dent. 2012, 21, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Esposito, M.; Hirsch, J.M.; Lekholm, U.; Thomsen, P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 1998, 106, 527–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lioubavina-Hack, N.; Lang, N.P.; Karring, T. Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2006, 17, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Busenlechner, D.; Fürhauser, R.; Haas, R.; Watzek, G.; Mailath, G.; Pommer, B. Long-term implant success at the Academy for Oral Implantology: 8-year follow-up and risk factor analysis. J. Periodontal Implant. Sci. 2014, 44, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Krebs, M.; Schmenger, K.; Neumann, K.; Weigl, P.; Moser, W.; Nentwig, G.-H. Long-Term Evaluation of ANKYLOS® Dental Implants, Part I: 20-Year Life Table Analysis of a Longitudinal Study of More Than 12,500 Implants. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17 (Suppl. S1), e275–e286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. 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]
  45. Bhola, M.; Neely, A.L.; Kolhatkar, S. Immediate implant placement: Clinical decisions, advantages, and disadvantages. J. Prosthodont. 2008, 17, 576–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Cardaropoli, G.; Araújo, M.; Lindhe, J. Dynamics of bone tissue formation in tooth extraction sites. An experimental study in dogs. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2003, 30, 809–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cha, H.; Kim, A.; Nowzari, H.; Chang, H.; Ahn, K. Simultaneous sinus lift and implant installation: Prospective study of consecutive two hundred seventeen sinus lift and four hundred sixty-two implants. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 2014, 16, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. 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] [PubMed]
Surgeries 05 00027 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart.
Surgeries 05 00027 g001
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

Jones, D.; Khan, R.S.; Thompson, J.D.; Ucer, C.; Wright, S. The Effect of Antihypertensive Agents on Dental Implant Stability, Osseointegration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Surgeries 2024, 5, 297-341. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020027

AMA Style

Jones D, Khan RS, Thompson JD, Ucer C, Wright S. The Effect of Antihypertensive Agents on Dental Implant Stability, Osseointegration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Surgeries. 2024; 5(2):297-341. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020027

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jones, Dary, Rabia S. Khan, John D. Thompson, Cemal Ucer, and Simon Wright. 2024. "The Effect of Antihypertensive Agents on Dental Implant Stability, Osseointegration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review" Surgeries 5, no. 2: 297-341. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020027

APA Style

Jones, D., Khan, R. S., Thompson, J. D., Ucer, C., & Wright, S. (2024). The Effect of Antihypertensive Agents on Dental Implant Stability, Osseointegration and Survival Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Surgeries, 5(2), 297-341. https://doi.org/10.3390/surgeries5020027

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop