ReviewCureus2024
Success Rates of Dental Implants in Patients With Diabetes: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Efficacy of narrow-diameter implants in restoring dentition defects in patients with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review evaluates the success rates of dental implants in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, focusing on outcomes such as implant survival, marginal bone loss, and peri-implant biomarkers. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Four studies were included, encompassing diverse populations and interventions. Findings indicate that diabetes, when well-managed (HbA1c < 8%), does not significantly compromise implant survival rates, with survival percentages ranging from 96.1% to 97.3% at one year and 87.3% to 96.1% at five years, comparable to non-diabetic populations. However, peri-implant health metrics, such as marginal bone loss (mean difference: -0.08 mm; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.08) and probing depth, were adversely affected in poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c > 8%), highlighting the critical role of glycemic control. Advanced statistical approaches, including dose-response relationships, revealed a progressive worsening of peri-implant outcomes as HbA1c levels increased. The review underscores the importance of interdisciplinary care and strict adherence to clinical protocols to optimize outcomes for diabetic patients receiving dental implants. Despite robust findings, limitations include heterogeneity among included studies and the need for long-term data to validate the observed trends. Future research should focus on standardized reporting and exploring the impact of advanced glycemic thresholds on implant success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.