Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Jan;51(1):202-217.
doi: 10.1111/joor.13567. Epub 2023 Aug 17.

Bruxism and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Birgitta Häggman-Henrikson  1 , David Ali  2 , Mustafa Aljamal  2 , Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Bruxism and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Birgitta Häggman-Henrikson et al. J Oral Rehabil. 2024 Jan.

Abstract

Background: Overload from bruxism may affect survival of dental implants.

Objectives: To evaluate implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) in patients presenting with probable bruxism compared to non-bruxers. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021238397).

Methods: An electronic search September 2022 in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Science Direct was combined with a hand search. Two independent reviewers carried out abstract screening, full-text assessment, quality assessment (National Institutes of Health tool) and data extraction. Only studies that provided information on self-report and clinical examination needed for the diagnosis of at least 'probable' bruxism were included. A pairwise random-effect meta-analysis was carried out.

Results: In total 1338 studies were identified, and after screening and full-text assessment 27 studies that presented data on 2105 implants in probable bruxers and 10 264 implants in non-bruxers were included, with 138 and 352 implant failures in respective groups. the meta-analysis showed that implants placed in probable bruxers had a higher risk of failure than in non-bruxers (OR 2.189; 95% CI 1.337, 3.583, p = .002). A meta-regression showed that follow-up time did not affect this OR. Eighteen studies provided general data on MBL but did not report results separated between bruxers and non-bruxers. Therefore, an analysis of MBL was not possible.

Conclusion: The results of the present systematic review show that implants placed in probable bruxers present a significantly higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-bruxers. This should be considered in treatment planning and management of implant patients.

Keywords: bruxism; dental implants; meta-analysis; survival; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

REFERENCES

    1. Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG, et al. Bruxism defined and graded: an international consensus. J Oral Rehabil. 2013;40(1):2-4.
    1. Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. Bruxism is mainly regulated centrally, not peripherally. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28(12):1085-1091.
    1. Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Raphael KG, et al. International consensus on the assessment of bruxism: report of a work in progress. J Oral Rehabil. 2018;45(11):837-844.
    1. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant failures: a multilevel mixed effects parametric survival analysis approach. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43(11):813-823.
    1. Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(7):e1-e9.

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources