-
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jan 2019To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6 mm extra-short implants (test group) versus ≥10 mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6 mm extra-short implants (test group) versus ≥10 mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systemic literature search of randomized clinical trials was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to compare all the outcome variables. Meta-regression analysis determined the effect of bone augmentation procedures and the influence of other clinical covariates on the results.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies comprising 1,612 implants (793 extra-short and 820 long implants) were selected for the meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference in the survival rate was observed at 1 and 3 years (p > 0.05). Extra-short implants displayed less marginal bone loss (MBL) from both implant placement time points (1 and 3 years) and prosthetic placement (1 year), as well as less biological complications, surgical time and treatment cost (p < 0.05). Contrarily, a statistically significant small number of prosthetic complications were reported with long implants (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Placement of extra-short implants (≤6 mm) presented as an equivalent option in the treatment of patients with an atrophic posterior arch up to 3-year follow-up. However, the long-term effectiveness of extra-short dental implants remains to be further studied.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30362137
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13026 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Dec 2023Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dental implants are a predictable option to replace missing teeth. Patients on antiresorptive medications used to treat disorders associated with bone resorption may need dental implants to replace missing teeth. The data on implant failure in patients on antiresorptive medication requiring dental implants, is conflicting and limited. This systematic review aims to investigate if antiresorptive medications have any clinical impact on dental implant survival. Electronic databases were searched until May 2020. The focus question (PICOS): Participants: humans, Interventions: implant placement surgery in patients on antiresorptive medication, Comparisons: patients on antiresorptive medication vs control (patients not on antiresorptive medication), Outcomes: implant survival, and Study design: clinical studies. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020209083). Fourteen nonrandomized studies were selected for data extraction and risk of bias assessment using the ROBINS-1 tool. Only studies with a control were included for the meta-analysis, 8 articles were included in the meta-analysis using implant-level data, and 5 articles were included in the meta-analysis using patient-level data. There was no statistical significance between the 2 groups at the patient level based on 265 patients. However, there was a statistically significant difference at the implant level based on 2697 implants. Therefore, antiresorptive medications, mainly bisphosphonates (BPs), may significantly contribute to implant failure. Antiresorptive medications, especially BPs may reduce implant survival and impair the osseointegration of dental implants. Failed implants in patients on BPs may not lead to osteonecrosis and may be replaced with success.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Diphosphonates; Osteonecrosis; Osseointegration
PubMed: 37905745
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00160 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2016Wide-diameter implants are frequently placed in molar sites to obtain appropriate restoration profiles, to rescue implants that lack stability, and to engage bone in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Wide-diameter implants are frequently placed in molar sites to obtain appropriate restoration profiles, to rescue implants that lack stability, and to engage bone in extraction sites. However, studies of wide-diameter implant placement have provided conflicting evidence regarding clinical outcomes. This systematic review aims to analyze survival rates of wide-diameter implants (platform diameter ≥5 mm) and assess clinical variables potentially affecting failure rates.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic search was conducted using MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE from January 1980 to October 2014. Publication screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed. Failure rate per implant-year was analyzed using mix-effects Poisson regression model to obtain summary estimates of the 5-year survival rate. Relative risk (RR) was calculated to evaluate the association of different clinical variables with estimated failure rates.
RESULTS
Eleven retrospective studies and eight prospective studies having at least 1-year follow-up period were included in the analysis. The estimated 5-year survival rate was 92.67% (95% confidence interval: [79.60, 97.50]) in the retrospective studies and 97.76% (Confidence interval: [93.25, 99.27]) in the prospective studies. Implant surface and implant diameter were significantly associated with the failure events in the retrospective studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Placement of wide-diameter implants demonstrated a promising survival rate during 5-year follow-up. Further controlled trials with the control group and longer follow-up period are needed to provide the direct evidence comparing survival rates of wide implants with survival rates of narrower implants.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Survival Analysis
PubMed: 26705937
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12730 -
The International Journal of... 2015Titanium dental implants have a high success rate; however, there are instances when a modified surface may be desirable. The aim of this article was to systematically... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Titanium dental implants have a high success rate; however, there are instances when a modified surface may be desirable. The aim of this article was to systematically review the different types of implant coatings that have been studied clinically, in vivo and in vitro, and the coating techniques being implemented.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature was searched electronically and manually through The Cochrane Library, Medline, and PubMed databases to identify articles studying dental implant surfaces and coating techniques. The database search strategy revealed 320 articles, of which 52 articles were considered eligible--40 in relation to implant coatings and 12 to the coating technique. An additional 30 articles were retrieved by hand search.
RESULTS
Several materials were identified as possible candidates for dental implant coatings; these include carbon, bisphosphonates, bone stimulating factors, bioactive glass and bioactive ceramics, fluoride, hydroxyapatite (HA) and calcium phosphate, and titanium/titanium nitride. HA coatings still remain the most biocompatible coatings even though the more innovative bioglass suggests promising results. The most common coating techniques are plasma spraying and hydrocoating. More recent techniques such as the nanoscale technology are also discussed.
CONCLUSIONS
Several implant coatings have been proposed, and some appear to give better clinical results and improved properties than others. Clinical trials are still required to provide compelling evidence-based results for their long-term successful outcomes.
Topics: Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Electrochemical Techniques; Humans; Plasma Gases; Surface Properties
PubMed: 25588174
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4124 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation May 2022Osseoperception is defined as the ability to perceive tactile sensation via mechanoreception in the peri-implant environment. The objective was to systematically review... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Osseoperception is defined as the ability to perceive tactile sensation via mechanoreception in the peri-implant environment. The objective was to systematically review the available literature on the osseoperception phenomenon following dental implant placement and to explore potential factors which might improve the perception capacity.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases up to June 2021. Both human and animal studies assessing sensory capacity or innervation following implant placement were included in this review. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection, data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies. The methodological quality of the included papers was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias for human studies and SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies.
RESULTS
The electronic search of databases yielded 1667 results. Following removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening and full-text reading, 22 publications were eligible to be included in the review. Psychophysical evidence from 14 studies indicated a lower tactile function of implants, where active and passive threshold levels were found to be 5 and 50 times higher for implants compared to natural teeth, respectively. The neurophysiological evidence from three studies indicated cortical plasticity following dental implant placement, measured via trigeminal nerve evoked potentials and functional magnetic resonance imaging. Histological evidence from five studies demonstrated the presence of myelinated nerve fibres in the peri-implant tissues. Additionally, immediate implant placement and loading showed beneficial effect on peri-implant tissue (re)innervation; however, no other biological or physiological factors could be identified influencing osseoperception.
CONCLUSIONS
The reported evidence supported the existence of so-called osseoperception phenomenon for restoring the sensory feedback pathway following oral implant rehabilitation. Further studies are required to identify factors that might further assist physiological integration of the oral implants in the human body as such to approach natural oral function.
Topics: Animals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Touch
PubMed: 34911146
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13296 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Jan 2024Overload from bruxism may affect survival of dental implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Overload from bruxism may affect survival of dental implants.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate implant failure and marginal bone loss (MBL) in patients presenting with probable bruxism compared to non-bruxers. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021238397).
METHODS
An electronic search September 2022 in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Science Direct was combined with a hand search. Two independent reviewers carried out abstract screening, full-text assessment, quality assessment (National Institutes of Health tool) and data extraction. Only studies that provided information on self-report and clinical examination needed for the diagnosis of at least 'probable' bruxism were included. A pairwise random-effect meta-analysis was carried out.
RESULTS
In total 1338 studies were identified, and after screening and full-text assessment 27 studies that presented data on 2105 implants in probable bruxers and 10 264 implants in non-bruxers were included, with 138 and 352 implant failures in respective groups. the meta-analysis showed that implants placed in probable bruxers had a higher risk of failure than in non-bruxers (OR 2.189; 95% CI 1.337, 3.583, p = .002). A meta-regression showed that follow-up time did not affect this OR. Eighteen studies provided general data on MBL but did not report results separated between bruxers and non-bruxers. Therefore, an analysis of MBL was not possible.
CONCLUSION
The results of the present systematic review show that implants placed in probable bruxers present a significantly higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-bruxers. This should be considered in treatment planning and management of implant patients.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Bruxism; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Implantation, Endosseous
PubMed: 37589382
DOI: 10.1111/joor.13567 -
PloS One 2022The objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal bone remodeling.
METHODS
A systematic review including PubMed and EMBASE databases through June 2021 was conducted. Two independent examiners screened titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles. Studies evaluating titanium dental implant osseointegration in native alveolar bone were included. A quality assessment of reporting was performed. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were produced for bone-implant contact (BIC), first BIC, and crestal bone level.
RESULTS
125 out of 249 full-text articles were reviewed, 55 original studies were included. Quality of reporting was generally low, omissions included animal characteristics, examiner masking/calibration, and sample size calculation. The typical minipig model protocol included surgical extraction of the mandibular premolars and first molar, 12±4 wks post-extraction healing, placement of three narrow regular length dental implants per jaw quadrant, submerged implant healing and 8 wks of osseointegration. Approximately 90% of studies reported undecalcified incandescent light microscopy histometrics. Overall, mean BIC was 59.88% (95%CI: 57.43-62.33). BIC increased significantly over time (p<0.001): 40.93 (95%CI: 34.95-46.90) at 2 wks, 58.37% (95%CI: 54.38-62.36) at 4 wks, and 66.33% (95%CI: 63.45-69.21) beyond 4 wks. Variability among studies was mainly explained by differences in observation interval post-extraction and post-implant placement, and implant surface. Heterogeneity was high for all studies (I2 > 90%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The minipig intraoral dental implant model appears to effectively demonstrate osseointegration and alveolar bone remodeling similar to that observed in humans and canine models.
Topics: Dental Implants
PubMed: 35226690
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264475 -
Journal of Dentistry May 2015Recent studies implicate smoking as a significant factor in the failure of dental implants. This review aims to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Recent studies implicate smoking as a significant factor in the failure of dental implants. This review aims to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, risk of postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss for smokers versus non-smokers, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
DATA
Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, smoking, tobacco, nicotine, smoker, and non-smoker.
SOURCES
An electronic search was undertaken in September/2014 in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not. The search strategy resulted in 1432 publications, of which 107 were eligible, with 19,836 implants placed in smokers, with 1259 failures (6.35%), and 60,464 implants placed in non-smokers, with 1923 failures (3.18%).
CONCLUSIONS
The insertion of implants in smokers significantly affected the failure rates, the risk of postoperative infections as well as the marginal bone loss. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Smoking is a factor that has the potential to negatively affect healing and the outcome of implant treatment. It is important to perform an updated periodic review to synthesize the clinical research evidence relevant to the matter.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Periodontal Diseases; Smoking
PubMed: 25778741
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.003 -
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine May 2023The use of dental implants has witnessed great popularity in recent years. It has been documented that dental implants are valuable aids in forensic identification. In... (Review)
Review
The use of dental implants has witnessed great popularity in recent years. It has been documented that dental implants are valuable aids in forensic identification. In particular, in the event of mass disasters, where distortion of body features may render the process of forensic identification challenging. The present review aims to explore the application of the use of dental implants in forensic identification. A literature search was performed on PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases. All studies addressing the application of dental implants for forensic identification published in English were eligible for inclusion in the review. This systematic review included a total of 14 articles that demonstrated the significance of dental implants in forensic identification. Three studies reported the use of dental implants in the process of identification of the deceased, one of which found the distance of the implant from the maxillary sinus was a pathognomonic feature of identity. Four studies conducted incineration experiments to assess dental implant characteristics following incineration. The studies identified the batch number and characteristic threads and grooves on dental implants despite incineration. The remaining studies evaluated the role of radiological assessment in identification. The findings of the aforementioned studies highlighted the benefits of radiologic imaging in identification. Dental implants carry extreme significance in forensic identification owing to their durability and ability to withstand extreme temperatures. This process can be further enhanced by the implementation of advanced technology in forensic cases.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Forensic Medicine; Hot Temperature; Dental Implantation, Endosseous
PubMed: 36948050
DOI: 10.1016/j.jflm.2023.102508 -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Apr 2016Bruxism was usually considered as a contraindication for oral implanting. The causal relationship between bruxism and dental implant failure was remained controversial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Bruxism; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 25726844
DOI: 10.1111/cid.12300