Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 16, 2026
Oral Biofilm Formation on Different Materials for Dental Implants
Published on: June 24, 2018
Does Bruxism Contribute to Dental Implant Failure? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yi Zhou1, Jinxia Gao2, Le Luo3
1The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) & Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine Ministry of Education, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Background:
Bruxism was usually considered as a contraindication for oral implanting. The causal relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure was remained controversial in existing literatures.
Purpose:
This meta-analysis was performed to investigate the relationship between them.
Materials And Methods:
This review conducted an electronic systematic literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed) and EmBase in November 2013 without time and language restrictions. Meanwhile, a hand searching for all the relevant references of included studies was also conducted. Study information extraction and methodological quality assessments were accomplished by two reviewers independently. A discussion ensued if any disagreement occurred, and unresolved issues were solved by consulting a third reviewer. Methodological quality was assessed by using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tool. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was pooled to estimate the relative effect of bruxism on dental implant failures. Fixed effects model was used initially; if the heterogeneity was high, random effects model was chosen for meta-analysis. Statistical analyses were carried out by using Review Manager 5.1.
Results:
In this meta-analysis review, extracted data were classified into two groups based on different units. Units were based on the number of prostheses (group A) and the number of patients (group B). In group A, the total pooled OR of bruxers versus nonbruxers for all subgroups was 4.72 (95% CI: 2.66-8.36, p = .07). In group B, the total pooled OR of bruxers versus nonbruxers for all subgroups was 3.83 (95% CI: 2.12-6.94, p = .22).
Conclusions:
This meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure. In contrast to nonbruxers, prostheses in bruxers had a higher failure rate. It suggests that bruxism is a contributing factor of causing the occurrence of dental implant technical/biological complications and plays a role in dental implant failure.
