Bruxism and prosthesis

doi:10.15406/jdhodt.2016.04.00123

Journal of

eISSN: 2373-4345

Dental Health, Oral Disorders & Therapy

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 5

Bruxism and prosthesis

Manuel Ribera Prat,¹ Ali Hussain Al Qahtani²

¹Universidad Internacional de Catalunya, Spain
²Dentist, Ministry of health, Saudi Arabia

Correspondence: Ali Hussain Al Qahtani, Dentist, Ministry of health, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Received: December 22, 2015 | Published: May 16, 2016

Citation: Prat MR, Qahtani AHA. Bruxism and prosthesis. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther. 2016;4(5):126-127. DOI: 10.15406/jdhodt.2016.04.00123

Download PDF

Introduction

Strength in prosthesis implant support produces one overload in structure, screw implants and bone. The aim of the present review is to provide a bibliographic research about risk factor and complications of the prosthododontic rehabilitation with implants in bruxism patients.

Keywords: prosthesis, implants, bruxism, dental, rehabilitation, prosthododontic

Materials and methods

Bibliographic research of Pubmed using terms:”oral implants AND bruxism” “dental implants prosthodontics complications AND bruxism” “biomechanics implants AND bruxism dental implants AND bruxism since 2000 to 2014 Table1.

Results

	Population	intervention	Comparison	Outcome (bruxism related)	Conclusions: is bruxism a risk factor?	Have bruxism relation with failure of implants
Schneider 2012⁵	70 patients	100 implants with different crown-to-implant ratio Follow-up 6.2 years	Reported bruxism (17 patients, 24.3%) Mechanical complications (wear, fracture, and screws loosening) Biological complications	Bruxism did not predict mechanical or biological complications	No	No bruxism and implant failures
Ji, 2012 ⁶	45 patients	297 implants 50 full-arch rehabilitations with immediate loading Follow-up 1–125.5 months	Bruxism (unspecified criteria; 58 implants) Marginal bone loss – implant success (Spiekermann and Jansen’s criteria)	Higher failure rates in bruxers (29.3% implants [17/58] vs 4.6% [11/239])	Uncertain	No bruxism and implant failures
Malò, 2011⁷	21 patients	995 implants 4 groups of patients based on edentulous areas Follow-up 5 years	Bruxism (anamnesis plus tooth wear; unspecified number of bruxers) Mechanical complications (fracture abutment, or screw loosening)	Four implants lost in two patients were in two bruxers	Uncertain	No bruxism and implant failures
Zupnik, 2011⁸	No specify	341 implants No specify follow-up	Self-reported clenching history (121 in clenchers vs 220 in nonclenchers) Implant failure	Clenching: 0.22 OR (95% C.I.: 0.04–1.41) for implant failure	No	Absence the relation between bruxism and implant failure

Table 1 Results

Recommendations

Avoid cantilevers.^1-3

Increase number of implants placing^1-3 larger implants with large diameters.^1-2

Prosthetic design

Allow adequate freedom of movement at occlusal contact.

Areas in maximum intercuspidation.^1-3

Large implants.^1,2 Flat incline plans of the cusps.^1-3

Using resin acrylic teeth in prosthesis.^1-3

Discussion

The examined papers supported no provide clear conclusions between a relationship between bruxism - implant failures,^4-6 bruxism- mechanical complications⁵ while that one study establish positive relationship between bruxism and mechanical failures.⁷ Although no convincing evidence that bruxism causes an overload of dental implants and their supra-structures, some practical guidelines are given as to reduce the risk of complications and, ultimately, implant failure that included: place more implants than would have been necessary, longer implants with a larger diameter help to keep the stresses in the bone as low as possible, flat incline planes of the cusps.⁸

Conclusion

No evidence that bruxism produce overload in implants although need more recommendations about size of implants, design of occlusion scheme and using discharge plaque.