Abstract
Background. Consensus statements of several international congresses and conferences include option of using dental implants as a potentially effective treatment alternative for ectodermal dysplasia patients. So far ectodermal dysplasia seems to be the most common disorder which arguments need for using dental implants among growing patients
Objective. To assess survival rates of dental implants placed among patients with ectodermal dysplasia based on previous literature data.
Materials and Methods. Bibliographic search of publications potentially related with the objective of present study was held through PubMed database (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), while also via Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/) search engine to increase the probability for identification of corresponding scientific articles. Data extraction was provided in selective manner in terms to collect specific rates of dental implants survival observed among ectodermal dysplasia patients.
Results. Provided analysis revealed that in the majority of studies approximated conventional implants survival rate exceeds 90% for the first five years. Due to the data extracted from systematic reviews implants survival rates among ectodermal dysplasia patients varied in the range of 35.7-98.7%; due to the data extracted from retrospective studies – in the range of 35.7-98.7%; due to the data extracted from prospective studies – in the range of 76-100%; due to the data extracted from critical review of literature – in the range of 88.5-97.6%.
Conclusion. Provided analysis revealed that dental implants remain reliable treatment option for patients with ectodermal dysplasia. Placement of dental implants among pediatric patients with ectodermal dysplasia characterized with decreased survival rates compare to intraosseous fixtures placed among adult ED patients. Use of mini-implants helps to overcome some complications and shortcomings related with placement of conventional implants among patients with confirmed ectodermal dysplasia diagnosis.
Publisher
Ukrainian Public Scientific Society "Continuing Dental Education"
Reference28 articles.
1. Nguyen-Nielsen M, Skovbo S, Svaneby D, Pedersen L, Fryzek J. The prevalence of X-linked hypohidrotic ectodermal dysplasia (XLHED) in Denmark, 1995–2010. Eur J Med Genet. 2013;56(5):236-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmg.2013.01.012
2. Goncharuk-Khomyn M, Yavuz I, Cavalcanti AL, Boykiv A, Nahirny Y. Key aspects of dental diagnostics and treatment specifics in ectodermal dysplasia patients: Comprehensive literature review. J Stomat. 2020;73(6):342-50. doi: 10.5114/jos.2020.102053
3. Yavuz Y, Doğan MS, Goncharuk-Khomyn M. Ectodermal Dysplasia: A Review. Makara J Health Res. 2021;25(3):9. doi: 10.7454/msk.v25i3.1305
4. Gökdere S, Schneider H, Hehr U, Willen L, Schneider P, Maier-Wohlfart S. Functional and clinical analysis of five EDA variants associated with ectodermal dysplasia but with a hard-to-predict significance. Front Genet. 2022;13:934395. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.934395
5. Guckes AD, Roberts MW, McCarthy GR. Pattern of permanent teeth present in individuals with ectodermal dysplasia and severe hypodontia suggests treatment with dental implants. Pediatr Dent. 1998;20(4):278-80.