-
Journal of Periodontology May 2019The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols.
METHODS
An electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables).
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables.
CONCLUSIONS
The available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30395355
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.18-0338 -
Biomedical Engineering Online Oct 2016Three-dimensional (3D) printing has numerous applications and has gained much interest in the medical world. The constantly improving quality of 3D-printing applications... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Three-dimensional (3D) printing has numerous applications and has gained much interest in the medical world. The constantly improving quality of 3D-printing applications has contributed to their increased use on patients. This paper summarizes the literature on surgical 3D-printing applications used on patients, with a focus on reported clinical and economic outcomes.
METHODS
Three major literature databases were screened for case series (more than three cases described in the same study) and trials of surgical applications of 3D printing in humans.
RESULTS
227 surgical papers were analyzed and summarized using an evidence table. The papers described the use of 3D printing for surgical guides, anatomical models, and custom implants. 3D printing is used in multiple surgical domains, such as orthopedics, maxillofacial surgery, cranial surgery, and spinal surgery. In general, the advantages of 3D-printed parts are said to include reduced surgical time, improved medical outcome, and decreased radiation exposure. The costs of printing and additional scans generally increase the overall cost of the procedure.
CONCLUSION
3D printing is well integrated in surgical practice and research. Applications vary from anatomical models mainly intended for surgical planning to surgical guides and implants. Our research suggests that there are several advantages to 3D-printed applications, but that further research is needed to determine whether the increased intervention costs can be balanced with the observable advantages of this new technology. There is a need for a formal cost-effectiveness analysis.
Topics: Humans; Models, Anatomic; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Prostheses and Implants; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 27769304
DOI: 10.1186/s12938-016-0236-4 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present systematic review was to analyze the survival and complication rates of zirconia-based and metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort and retrospective case series on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been clinically examined at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts, full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles, resulting in 35 included studies on implant-supported crowns. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.3% (95% CI: 96.8-99.1) for metal-ceramic implant supported SCs (n = 4,363) compared to 97.6% (95% CI: 94.3-99.0) for zirconia implant supported SCs (n = 912). About 86.7% (95% CI: 80.7-91.0) of the metal-ceramic SCs (n = 1,300) experienced no biological/technical complications over the entire observation period. The corresponding rate for zirconia SCs (n = 76) was 83.8% (95% CI: 61.6-93.8). The biologic outcomes of the two types of crowns were similar; yet, zirconia SCs exhibited less aesthetic complications than metal-ceramics. The 5-year incidence of chipping of the veneering ceramic was similar between the material groups (2.9% metal-ceramic, 2.8% zirconia-ceramic). Significantly (p = 0.001), more zirconia-ceramic implant SCs failed due to material fractures (2.1% vs. 0.2% metal-ceramic implant SCs). No studies on newer types of monolithic zirconia SCs fulfilled the simple inclusion criteria of 3 years follow-up time and clinical examination of the present systematic review.
CONCLUSION
Zirconia-ceramic implant-supported SCs are a valid treatment alternative to metal-ceramic SCs, with similar incidence of biological complications and less aesthetic problems. The amount of ceramic chipping was similar between the material groups; yet, significantly more zirconia crowns failed due to material fractures.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328190
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13306 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2016The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.
RESULTS
After title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Overlay; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous
PubMed: 25664612
DOI: 10.1111/clr.12531 -
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and... 2015The choice of a myoelectric or body-powered upper-limb prosthesis can be determined using factors including control, function, feedback, cosmesis, and rejection.... (Review)
Review
The choice of a myoelectric or body-powered upper-limb prosthesis can be determined using factors including control, function, feedback, cosmesis, and rejection. Although body-powered and myoelectric control strategies offer unique functions, many prosthesis users must choose one. A systematic review was conducted to determine differences between myoelectric and body-powered prostheses to inform evidence-based clinical practice regarding prescription of these devices and training of users. A search of 9 databases identified 462 unique publications. Ultimately, 31 of them were included and 11 empirical evidence statements were developed. Conflicting evidence has been found in terms of the relative functional performance of body-powered and myoelectric prostheses. Body-powered prostheses have been shown to have advantages in durability, training time, frequency of adjustment, maintenance, and feedback; however, they could still benefit from improvements of control. Myoelectric prostheses have been shown to improve cosmesis and phantom-limb pain and are more accepted for light=intensity work. Currently, evidence is insufficient to conclude that either system provides a significant general advantage. Prosthetic selection should be based on a patient's individual needs and include personal preferences, prosthetic experience, and functional needs. This work demonstrates that there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding functional differences in upper-limb prostheses.
Topics: Amputees; Arm; Artificial Limbs; Biomedical Engineering; Electromyography; Humans; Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 26230500
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2014.08.0192 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2019Immediate loading of dental implants has gained widespread popularity because of its advantages in shortening treatment duration and improving esthetics and patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Immediate loading of dental implants has gained widespread popularity because of its advantages in shortening treatment duration and improving esthetics and patient acceptance. However, whether immediate loading can achieve clinical outcomes comparable with those of early or conventional delayed loading is still unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of immediate loading versus early or conventional loading implants in patients rehabilitated with fixed prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were supplemented by manual searches up to October 2018. Only human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate with early or conventional loading dental implants were included. Quality assessment was performed by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. For the meta-analysis, the dichotomous and continuous variables were pooled and analyzed by using risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The outcomes assessed included survival rate, marginal bone level changes, peri-implant gingival level, probing depth, and implant stability. The subgroup analyses included healing methods, implant time, occlusal contact, number of missing teeth, and tooth position.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine trials (49 articles) were included from the initial 763 references evaluated. When compared with conventional loading, with implants regarded as a statistical unit, a statistically significant lower survival rate was observed in the immediate loading dental implant (RR=0.974; 95% CI, 0.954, 0.994; P=.012). Regarding other outcomes, including marginal bone level changes, peri-implant gingival level, probing depth, and implant stability, no statistically significant differences were observed when comparing immediate versus early or conventional loading (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with early loading, immediate loading could achieve comparable implant survival rates and marginal bone level changes. Compared with conventional loading, immediate loading was associated with a higher incidence of implant failure.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 31421892
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.013 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2021To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
METHODS
Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all-ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.
RESULTS
Forty-nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3-year survival rate of veneered-reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%-99.6%). The estimated 3-year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%-98.5%) for monolithic-reinforced glass-ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%-98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%-97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%-97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%-87.7%) for resin-matrix-ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates.
CONCLUSIONS
With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant-supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short-term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34642991
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13863 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with metal-ceramic FDPs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies and retrospective case series on implant-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.
RESULTS
The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles resulting in 19 studies on implant FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported on 932 metal-ceramic and 175 zirconia-ceramic FDPs. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.8%-99.5%) for metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs, and of 93.0% (95% CI: 90.6%-94.8%) for zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs (p < 0.001). Thirteen studies including 781 metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs estimated a 5-year rate of ceramic fractures and chippings to be 11.6% compared with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) complication rate for zirconia implant-supported FDPs of 50%, reported in a small study with 13 zirconia implant-supported FDPs. Significantly (p = 0.001) more, that is, 4.1%, of the zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs were lost due to ceramic fractures compared to only 0.2% of the metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs. Detailed analysis of factors like number of units of the FDPs or location in the jaws was not possible due to heterogeneity of reporting. No studies on monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the present review. Furthermore, no conclusive results were found for the aesthetic outcomes of both FDP-types.
CONCLUSION
For implant-supported FDPs, conventionally veneered zirconia should not be considered as material selection of first priority, as pronounced risk for framework fractures and chipping of the zirconia veneering ceramic was observed. Monolithic zirconia may be an interesting alternative, but its clinical medium- to long-term outcomes have not been evaluated yet. Hence, metal ceramics seems to stay the golden standard for implant-supported multiple-unit FDPs.
Topics: Ceramics; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Survival Analysis; Zirconium
PubMed: 30328185
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13277 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2022The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses...
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses (RDPs) more efficacious than no prosthetic treatment, treatment to a shortened dental arch (SDA), or tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed electronically for the period 1966-2020. Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis. Prospective studies found that RDPs could be maintained without any significant periodontal destruction on a long-term basis. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis could be performed. Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation. RDPs had only a limited effect on masticatory efficiency and nutritional status. RDPs may improve oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), but to a lesser extent compared with that of patients treated to an SDA.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss. RDPs do not inevitably improve masticatory efficiency but improve OHRQoL, although less than for patients treated with FDPs including resin-bonded FDPs.
Topics: Dental Implants; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Periodontitis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 34761421
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13519 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2023Artificial intelligence applications are increasing in prosthodontics. Still, the current development and performance of artificial intelligence in prosthodontic... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence applications are increasing in prosthodontics. Still, the current development and performance of artificial intelligence in prosthodontic applications has not yet been systematically documented and analyzed.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the performance of the artificial intelligence models in prosthodontics for tooth shade selection, automation of restoration design, mapping the tooth preparation finishing line, optimizing the manufacturing casting, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic systematic review was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies with artificial intelligence models were selected based on 6 criteria: tooth shade selection, automated fabrication of dental restorations, mapping the finishing line of tooth preparations, optimizing the manufacturing casting process, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality assessment of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (nonrandomized experimental studies). A third investigator was consulted to resolve lack of consensus.
RESULTS
A total of 36 articles were reviewed and classified into 6 groups based on the application of the artificial intelligence model. One article reported on the development of an artificial intelligence model for tooth shade selection, reporting better shade matching than with conventional visual selection; 14 articles reported on the feasibility of automated design of dental restorations using different artificial intelligence models; 1 artificial intelligence model was able to mark the margin line without manual interaction with an average accuracy ranging from 90.6% to 97.4%; 2 investigations developed artificial intelligence algorithms for optimizing the manufacturing casting process, reporting an improvement of the design process, minimizing the porosity on the cast metal, and reducing the overall manufacturing time; 1 study proposed an artificial intelligence model that was able to predict facial changes in patients using removable prostheses; and 17 investigations that developed clinical decision support, expert systems for designing removable partial dentures for clinicians and educational purposes, computer-aided learning with video interactive programs for student learning, and automated removable partial denture design.
CONCLUSIONS
Artificial intelligence models have shown the potential for providing a reliable diagnostic tool for tooth shade selection, automated restoration design, mapping the preparation finishing line, optimizing the manufacturing casting, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures, but they are still in development. Additional studies are needed to further develop and assess their clinical performance.
Topics: Humans; Prosthodontics; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Implants; Tooth; Dental Care; Denture, Partial, Removable
PubMed: 34281697
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.001