-
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2020The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate if there was a significantly enhanced risk of dental implant failure due to the increased... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
The present systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to investigate if there was a significantly enhanced risk of dental implant failure due to the increased number of cigarettes smoked per day.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus, were searched until January, 2019. The search terms "dental implant, oral implant, smoking, smoker, tobacco, nicotine and non-smoker" were used in combination to identify the publications providing data for dental implant failures related to the smoking habit. Publications were excluded if the quantity of cigarettes consumed per day was not reported. Fixed- or random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool the estimates of relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Having additional information supplied by the authors, 23 articles were selected for final analysis. The meta-analyses based on implant- and patient-related data showed a significant increase in the RR of implant failure in patients who smoked >20 cigarettes per day compared with non-smokers (implant based: p = .001; RR: 2.45; CI: 1.42-4.22 and patient based: p < .001; RR: 4; CI: 2.72-5.89).
CONCLUSION
The risk of implant failure was elevated with an increase in the number of cigarettes smoked per day.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Smokers; Smoking
PubMed: 31955453
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13257 -
Clinical Oral Investigations May 2021To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) systems when used to place dental implants and to compare its accuracy with static... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the accuracy of dynamic computer-aided implant surgery (dCAIS) systems when used to place dental implants and to compare its accuracy with static computer-aided implant surgery (sCAIS) systems and freehand implant placement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was made to identify all relevant studies reporting on the accuracy of dCAIS systems for dental implant placement. The following PICO question was developed: "In patients or artificial models, is dental implant placement accuracy higher when dCAIS systems are used in comparison with sCAIS systems or with freehand placement? The main outcome variable was angular deviation between the central axes of the planned and final position of the implant. The data were extracted in descriptive tables, and a meta-analysis of single means was performed in order to estimate the deviations for each variable using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Out of 904 potential articles, the 24 selected assessed 9 different dynamic navigation systems. The mean angular and entry 3D global deviations for clinical studies were 3.68° (95% CI: 3.61 to 3.74; I = 99.4%) and 1.03 mm (95% CI: 1.01 to 1.04; I = 82.4%), respectively. Lower deviation values were reported in in vitro studies (mean angular deviation of 2.01° (95% CI: 1.95 to 2.07; I = 99.1%) and mean entry 3D global deviation of 0.46 mm (95% CI: 0.44 to 0.48 ; I = 98.5%). No significant differences were found between the different dCAIS systems. These systems were significantly more accurate than sCAIS systems (mean difference (MD): -0.86°; 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.36) and freehand implant placement (MD: -4.33°; 95% CI: -5.40 to -3.25).
CONCLUSION
dCAIS systems allow highly accurate implant placement with a mean angular of less than 4°. However, a 2-mm safety margin should be applied, since deviations of more than 1 mm were observed. dCAIS systems increase the implant placement accuracy when compared with freehand implant placement and also seem to slightly decrease the angular deviation in comparison with sCAIS systems.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of dCAIS could reduce the rate of complications since it allows a highly accurate implant placement.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Computers; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Margins of Excision; Surgery, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 33635397
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03833-8 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2021Dynamic navigation is a technique that allows for the placement of dental implants using a computer-guided approach according to preoperative planning. Its accuracy has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
Dynamic navigation is a technique that allows for the placement of dental implants using a computer-guided approach according to preoperative planning. Its accuracy has been assessed in several previous studies. The purpose of this study was to summarize data on implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation, to synthesize the frequency of intraoperative complications and implant failures, and to compare this technique with static computer-guided surgery and a freehand approach.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches until December 2019 were performed. The outcome variables were implant placement accuracy using dynamic navigation, accuracy differences between dynamic and static techniques and between dynamic and freehand techniques, intraoperative complications, and implant failures. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
A total of 32 studies were included; 29 reported accuracy values (2,756 implants), and 10 focused on complications and implant failures (1,039 implants). The pooled mean implant placement errors were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.677 to 0.943) mm at the entry point and 0.910 (95% CI: 0.770 to 1.049) mm at the apical point. The pooled mean vertical and angular deviations were 0.899 (95% CI: 0.721 to 1.078) mm and 3.807 (95% CI: 3.083 to 4.530) degrees. The navigation group showed significantly lower implant placement errors with respect to the freehand technique (P < .01) and similar accuracy values (P ≥ .05) compared with the static technique. The pooled prevalence of failures was 1% (95% CI: 0.00% to 2%).
CONCLUSION
Dynamic navigation provided small implant placement errors, comparable with those obtained using static computer-guided surgery, and can be considered a more accurate technique than conventional freehand surgery.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Equipment Failure; Humans; Intraoperative Complications; Surgery, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 34698720
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.8770 -
International Journal of Environmental... Feb 2022The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Models, Dental
PubMed: 35206217
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19042026 -
Journal of Dentistry May 2019To identify and appraise the most recent studies reporting dental implant survival in adults (≥18 years) using contemporary implant systems (solid screw, roughened... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
To identify and appraise the most recent studies reporting dental implant survival in adults (≥18 years) using contemporary implant systems (solid screw, roughened surface) for a period of 10 years; and explore new predictors of implant survival.
SOURCE
MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials were searched from 1997 to January 2018 to focus on contemporary implant systems.
STUDY SELECTION
Only prospective observational studies with at least 10 participants and 35 implants were included. The unit of study was the 'absolute survival' rate of dental implants after 10 years in the oral cavity. Study quality was assessed utilising a modified Hoy risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. A sensitivity meta-analysis was undertaken utilising a plausibly imputed model for missing data.
DATA
18 studies met the inclusion criteria. The summary estimate for 10-year survival at the implant level was 96.4% (95% CI 95.2%-97.5%) and the prediction interval was 91.5%-99.4%. The sensitivity meta-analysis summary estimate of survival was 93.2% (95% CI 90.1% to 95.8%)p = 0.041 with a prediction interval of 76.6%-100%. Older age (≥ 65 years) was a significant predictor at 91.5%, p = 0.038 in the sensitivity meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
A traditional analysis produced similar 10-year survival estimates to previous systematic reviews. A more realistic sensitivity meta-analysis accounting for loss to follow-up data and the calculation of prediction intervals demonstrated a possible doubling of the risk of implant loss in the older age groups.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Improved analysis provides the clinician with better estimation of the real-world risk of implant failures so helping the clinician communicate the potential risk to patients.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 30904559
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008 -
Implant Dentistry Dec 2016Occlusal overload may cause implant biomechanical failures, marginal bone loss, or even complete loss of osseointegration. Thus, it is important for clinicians to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Occlusal overload may cause implant biomechanical failures, marginal bone loss, or even complete loss of osseointegration. Thus, it is important for clinicians to understand the role of occlusion in implant long-term stability. This systematic review updates the understanding of occlusion on dental implants, the impact on the surrounding peri-implant tissues, and the effects of occlusal overload on implants. Additionally, recommendations of occlusal scheme for implant prostheses and designs were formulated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers completed a literature search using the PubMed database and a manual search of relevant journals. Relevant articles from January 1950 to September 20, 2015 published in the English language were considered.
RESULTS
Recommendations for implant occlusion are lacking in the literature. Despite this, implant occlusion should be carefully addressed.
CONCLUSION
Recommendations for occlusal schemes for single implants or fixed partial denture supported by implants include a mutually protected occlusion with anterior guidance and evenly distributed contacts with wide freedom in centric relation. Suggestions to reduce occlusal overload include reducing cantilevers, increasing the number of implants, increasing contact points, monitoring for parafunctional habits, narrowing the occlusal table, decreasing cuspal inclines, and using progressive loading in patients with poor bone quality. Protecting the implant and surrounding peri-implant bone requires an understanding of how occlusion plays a role in influencing long-term implant stability.
Topics: Bite Force; Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Dental Occlusion; Dental Prosthesis Retention; Humans
PubMed: 27749518
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000488 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Sep 2022This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to compare the clinical data including success rates, tissue preservation, esthetic results, and patient-reported outcomes between delayed implant placement after alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and immediate implant placement (IIP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Both electronic and manual searches were performed for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies consisting of at least 10 cases per group and a follow-up of at least 1-year in duration. The primary outcome was the implant success rate and secondary outcomes were changes in marginal bone level (MBL), pink esthetic score (PES) and patient reported outcomes consisting of complications and satisfaction.
RESULTS
A total of 12 studies were included (8 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies). This review contained 456 implants placed after ARP and 459 implants placed through IIP. The results from this meta-analysis showed that the success rates of implants placed through ARP protocol (98.68%) was significantly higher than that of implants placed through IIP protocol (95.21%) (RR = 1.03; 95% CI [1.01; 1.06]; P = .008; I = 0%).
CONCLUSION
The results from this meta-analysis and systematic review showed that implants placed through ARP protocol may demonstrate higher success rates compared to implants placed through IIP.
Topics: Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36162892
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101734 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols...
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2-3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2-3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2-3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow-up time of 12 months, reporting on solid-screw-type implants with rough surfaces and an intra-osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow-up and number of implants.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full-text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta-analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2-3B), 96.3% (Type 2-3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2-3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2-3A and Type 2-3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).
CONCLUSIONS
Evaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.
Topics: Humans; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 30328194
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13276 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Feb 2021To assess the effect of connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of vertical mid-facial soft tissue change when applied at the buccal aspect following single immediate... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of connective tissue graft (CTG) in terms of vertical mid-facial soft tissue change when applied at the buccal aspect following single immediate implant placement (IIP).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two independent reviewers conducted an electronic literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE and Cochrane databases as well as a manual search to identify eligible clinical studies up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies (NRSs) comparing IIP with CTG and without CTG over a mean follow-up of at least 12 months were included for a qualitative analysis. Meta-analyses were performed on data provided by RCTs.
RESULTS
Out of 1814 records, 5 RCTs and 3 NRSs reported on 409 (IIP + CTG: 246, IIP: 163) immediately installed implants with a mean follow-up ranging from 12 to 108 months. Only 1 RCT showed low risk of bias. Meta-analysis revealed a significant difference in terms of vertical mid-facial soft tissue change between IIP + CTG and IIP pointing to 0.41 mm (95% CI [0.21; 0.61], p < .001) in favour of soft tissue grafting. This outcome was clinically relevant since the risk for ≥1 mm asymmetry in mid-facial vertical soft tissue level was 12 times (RR 12.10, 95% CI [2.57; 56.91], p = .002) lower following IIP + CTG. Soft tissue grafting also resulted in a trend towards less bleeding on probing (MD 17%, 95% CI [-35%; 1%], p = .06). Meta-analyses did not reveal significant differences in terms of pink aesthetic score, marginal bone level change and probing depth. Results were inconclusive for horizontal mid-facial soft tissue change and papilla height change. Based on GRADE guidelines, a moderate recommendation for the use of a CTG following IIP can be made.
CONCLUSION
CTG contributes to mid-facial soft tissue stability following IIP. Therefore, CTG should be considered when elevated risk for mid-facial recession is expected in the aesthetic zone (thin gingival biotype, <0.5 mm buccal bone thickness).
Topics: Connective Tissue; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Esthetics, Dental; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33125754
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13397 -
Journal of Periodontology Jun 2016Multiple variables have been shown to affect early marginal bone loss (MBL). Among them, the location of the microgap with respect to the alveolar bone crest, occlusion,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple variables have been shown to affect early marginal bone loss (MBL). Among them, the location of the microgap with respect to the alveolar bone crest, occlusion, and use of a polished collar have traditionally been investigated as major contributory factors for this early remodeling. Recently, soft tissue thickness has also been investigated as a possible factor influencing this phenomenon. Hence, this study aims to further evaluate the influence of soft tissue thickness on early MBL around dental implants.
METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed by two independent reviewers in several databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, for articles up to May 2015 reporting soft tissue thickness at time of implant placement and MBL with ≥12-month follow-up. In addition, random effects meta-analyses of selected studies were applied to analyze the weighted mean difference (WMD) of MBL between groups of thick and thin peri-implant soft tissue. Metaregression was conducted to investigate any potential influences of confounding factors, i.e., platform switching design, cement-/screw-retained restoration, and flapped/flapless surgical techniques.
RESULTS
Eight articles were included in the systematic review, and five were included in the quantitative synthesis and meta-analyzed to examine the influence of tissue thickness on early MBL. Meta-analysis for the comparison of MBL among selected studies showed a WMD of -0.80 mm (95% confidence interval -1.18 to -0.42 mm) (P <0.0001), favoring the thick tissue group. Metaregression of the selected studies failed to demonstrate an association among MBL and confounding factors.
CONCLUSION
The current study demonstrates that implants placed with an initially thicker peri-implant soft tissue have less radiographic MBL in the short term.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Alveolar Process; Bone Diseases, Metabolic; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Surgical Flaps
PubMed: 26777766
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2016.150571