Clinical Outcomes and Cytokine Profile of Standard and Short Implant-supported Prostheses in Diabetics Treated for Periodontal Disease: A 5-year Study.

PURPOSE

The present cross-sectional study aimed to assess the clinico-radiographic parameters as well as salivary levels of receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-Β ligand (RANKL), osteoprotegerin (OPG), interleukin (IL)-6, and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) around standard and short dental implants (SDIs)-supported fixed partial denture in partially dentate type-II diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients treated for periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study comprised 4 groups: group 1 included T2DM patients with standard implants (n = 20); group II included non-T2DM patients with standard implants (n = 20); group III included T2DM patients with SDIs (n = 20); and group IV included non-T2DM patients with SDIs (n = 20). Participants eligible for the study included medically diagnosed T2DM patients with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels ≥ 6.5%, and non-T2DM participants with HbA1c levels between 4.0% and 5.0%. All had undergone previous periodontal therapy and had at least one standard implant and one SDI in the posterior maxillary or mandibular region. Exclusions were subjects with systemic conditions other than T2DM, recent use of steroids or antimicrobials, pregnancy or lactation, edentulism, misaligned dentition, or alcohol/tobacco use. Treatment involved non-surgical periodontal therapy, implant placement, and prosthetic procedures, with assessments including clinical (plaque index [PI], bleeding on probing [BOP], probing depth [PD]), radiographic (crestal bone loss [CBL]) parameters, and salivary cytokine levels including RANKL, OPG, IL-6, and TNF-α.

RESULTS

The study groups, each comprising 20 participants, showed no significant differences in demographics, restoration type, T2DM duration, family history, body mass index, or brushing routine (p>0.05). At baseline and 5-year follow-up, T2DM participants exhibited poorer periodontal parameters compared to non-T2DM, with higher PI (baseline: 62.2 ± 5.8% vs 29.6 ± 3.7%; 5-year follow-up: 69.2 ± 6.1% vs 32.8 ± 3.8%), BOP (baseline: 30.5 ± 3.2% vs 18.2 ± 2.6%; 5-year follow-up: 35.5 ± 3.9% vs 20.5 ± 2.5%), PD (baseline: 5.5 ± 1.1 mm vs 3.1 ± 0.9 mm; 5-year follow-up: 4.2 ± 0.8 mm vs 2.4 ± 0.7 mm), and CBL (baseline: 4.4 ± 0.4 mm vs 2.0 ± 0.2 mm; 5-yearfollow-up: 4.9 ± 0.5 mm vs 2.3 ± 0.3 mm), regardless of implant type. Salivary cytokine levels (RANKL, OPG, IL-6, TNF-α) were consistently higher in T2DM groups than non-T2DM across both implant types. Participants with SDIs showed comparable clinico-radiographic outcomes and salivary levels of cytokines to standard implants.

CONCLUSION

The application of SDI-supported rehabilitation in T2DM and non-diabetics showed comparable clinico-radiographic outcomes and salivary levels of cytokines to standard dental implants. Furthermore, T2DM patients exhibit poorer periodontal health and elevated inflammatory markers in patients with standard implants and SDIs.