An open, prospective, non‐randomized, controlled, multicentre study to evaluate the clinical outcome of implant treatment in women over 60 years of age with osteoporosis/osteopenia: 1‐year results

Abstract Background Osteoporosis has been called a potential risk factor for bone healing around implants. Aim The aim of this multicentre study was to verify the clinical performance of fluoridated implants in the maxilla of subjects with diagnosed systemic primary osteoporosis/osteopenia. Material and Methods Postmenopausal women in need of 2–8 splinted implants in maxilla underwent bone mineral density measurements in the hip and spine, using dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry scans. Based on their T‐scores, they were divided into two study groups: Group O (osteoporosis/osteopenia group) subjects had a T‐score ≤−2, Group C (control group) had a T‐score of ≥−1, and subjects with a T‐score <−1 but >−2 were excluded. Implants were placed with a two‐stage procedure and loaded 4–8 weeks after abutment surgery. At 6 months and 1 year after functional loading, clinical parameters (including peri‐apical radiographs) were assessed. Results One hundred and forty‐eight implants were placed in 48 subjects (mean age: 67 years (range [59–83]). Sixty‐three implants were placed in 20 osteoporosis subjects (Group O, mean age: 69 years; range [59–83]), and 85 were placed in control subjects (Group C, mean age: 65 years; range [60–74]). The cumulative survival rate, on an implant level, was 99.3% (Group O: 98.4%; Group C: 100.0%). The cumulative survival rate, on a subject level, was 97.9% (Group O: 94.7%; Group C: 100.0%). Marginal bone level ( MBL ) alterations from functional loading to the 1‐year follow‐up visit were measured on an implant level and a subject level. The overall MBL alteration on an implant level was −0.01 ± 0.51 mm (Group O: −0.11 ± 0.49 mm; Group C: 0.05 ± 0.52 mm). The overall MBL alteration on a subject level was −0.04 ± 0.27 mm (Group O: −0.17 ± 0.30 mm; Group C: 0.04 ± 0.23 mm). Conclusion Within the limitations of this prospective, non‐randomized, controlled, multicentre study, it can be concluded that oral implant therapy in patients suffering from osteoporosis/osteopenia is a reliable treatment option with comparable integration rates as in healthy patients. Long‐term follow of the study groups is necessary to compare marginal bone alterations and treatment outcomes.