-
Clinical Oral Investigations Nov 2023This systematic review assessed the available evidence on the survival and success rate of zirconia and titanium implants. As secondary outcomes, aesthetic, radiographic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assessed the available evidence on the survival and success rate of zirconia and titanium implants. As secondary outcomes, aesthetic, radiographic and clinical parameters, as well as biological and mechanical complications, were considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed up to March 2022 to identify CCTs/RCTs comparing zirconia and titanium implants with a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed when ≥ 2 articles with similar characteristics were retrieved.
RESULTS
Four published articles with two RCTs (2 different patient populations) with 100 zirconia and 99 titanium implants that were followed up over 12-80 months were selected out of the 6040 articles. A non-statistically significant difference between zirconia and titanium implant survival at 12 months was suggested (P = 0.0938). The success rates were 57.5-93.3% and 57.1-100% for zirconia and titanium implants, respectively. The pink aesthetic score (PES) was higher for zirconia (10.33 ± 2.06 to 11.38 ± 0.92) compared to titanium implants (8.14 ± 3.58 to 11.56 ± 1.0).
CONCLUSION
Based on the 2 RCTs retrieved in the literature, similar survival rates were reported for zirconia and titanium implants in the short term (12 months of follow-up). Future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the long-term outcomes of zirconia implants.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Zirconia implants may be the procedure of choice, particularly in the aesthetic zone, since they show a similar survival and success rate as titanium implants on a short-term follow-up.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Systematic review registration number-CRD42021288704 (PROSPERO).
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Titanium; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Zirconium; Dental Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 37740825
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05242-5 -
The International Journal of... 2021To assess the clinical outcomes of maxillary overdentures supported by dental implants by conducting a literature review.
PURPOSE
To assess the clinical outcomes of maxillary overdentures supported by dental implants by conducting a literature review.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was undertaken in March 2019. Eligibility criteria included publications reporting cases of implant-supported maxillary overdentures with follow-up information.
RESULTS
A total of 131 publications were included (1,478 overdentures supported by 6,681 implants). The mean number of attachments per overdenture was 3.8 ± 1.2 (range: 1 to 9), and a bar-clip system was used in about half of the cases. The prostheses were followed up for a mean of 47.9 ± 32.8 (range 1: to 240) months. A total of 401 implants (6.0%) failed in 219 patients (14.8%), and 55 prostheses (3.7%) failed at a mean of 40.2 ± 53.2 (6 to 240) months after placement. Most of the failures happened within the first year after placement for both implants (52.1%) and prostheses (41.8%). Patients with fewer implants per prosthesis presented higher prosthesis failure rates than patients with more implants per prosthesis. The cumulative survival rate for dental implants after 19 years was 70.4%, and for implant-supported maxillary overdentures was 79.8%. Presence of palatal coverage and/or metallic structure/reinforcement does not seem to have an influence on failure rate. Of the most commonly used attachment systems, the ball/O-ring and the Ceka were the ones with the highest rates of patients having at least one implant failure.
CONCLUSION
Most of the prosthesis failures were due to loss of implants, and the first year was the most critical period for failures. The number of dental implants placed per patient seemed to have an impact on the occurrence of overdenture failure.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Maxilla; Prosthesis Failure
PubMed: 33625390
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6905 -
The Journal of Oral Implantology Aug 2023Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are commonly prescribed to treat mental health disorders, and previously published literature, although scarce, has shown... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are commonly prescribed to treat mental health disorders, and previously published literature, although scarce, has shown a significant association between SSRI use and dental implant failure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine whether such an association exists and, if so, to determine its strength. Reviewers performed an extensive search of the literature, last accessed in June 2022 in PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases using MeSH terms. Retrospective and prospective observational cohort and experimental studies evaluating the role of SSRI on dental implant failure among individuals ≥18 years of age, with a minimum follow-up of 6 months after implant placement, were deemed eligible. The search yielded a total of 6 eligible studies, all retrospective cohorts. Statistical analyses were performed using the statistical software R 4.1.3. Results showed higher implant failure rates among SSRI users vs non-SSRI users at both the patient level (5.6%-19.6% vs 1.9%-8.0%) and the implant level (5.6%-12.5% vs 1.9%-5.8%). The pooled relative risk (RR) of implant failure was more than double among SSRI users at the patient level (pooled RR: 2.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-3.55, P < .01) and at the implant level (pooled RR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.74-3.15, P < .01) compared with non-SSRI users. DerSimonian and Laird estimates showed homogeneity of the studies (I2 = 0%, P > .05), and funnel plots and Egger's test determined no publication bias across all selected studies at both patient and implant levels. In conclusion, SSRI use is significantly associated with higher implant failure. Providers should be aware of this association and educate patients on the risk of implant therapy when obtaining informed consent.
Topics: Humans; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors; Dental Implants; Retrospective Studies; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37527173
DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-22-00170 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jun 2023The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to systematically analyze the influence of smoking on the incidence of peri-implantitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The search was performed in the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases (finished on November 30, 2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA statement. Prospective cohort studies that evaluate the incidence of peri-implantitis in smokers and non-smokers were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles, and abstracts, did the full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. The results were summarized through random-effects meta-analyses. The GRADE method was used to determine the certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
A total of 7 studies with 702 patients and 1959 implants were included for analysis. The meta-analysis revealed a significant difference between smokers and non-smokers for the risk of peri-implantitis in the implant-based (p < .0001) and patient-based analysis (p = .003). A strong association between smoking and the risk for peri-implantitis was verified at the implant level (RR: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.46-1.85) and the patient level (RR: 2.79, 95% CI: 1.42-5.50).
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate certainty evidence suggests that smoking is associated with peri-implantitis compared to non-smoking at the patient and implant levels.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Dental Implants; Incidence; Prospective Studies; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 36939434
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14066 -
American Journal of Rhinology & Allergy Jul 2022Implantological procedures aimed at rehabilitating upper jaw edentulous patients (dental implant placement and/or maxillary sinus grafting) can sporadically result in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Implantological procedures aimed at rehabilitating upper jaw edentulous patients (dental implant placement and/or maxillary sinus grafting) can sporadically result in sinusitis. In these patients, endoscopic sinus surgery is the most commonly employed treatment, but clinical scenarios and comprehensive management strategies are extremely heterogeneous across studies.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically define treatment strategies and related success rates for sinusitis following dental implantation, detailing different current treatment choices and concepts.
METHODS
Adopting a PRISMA-compliant review framework, systematic searches were performed in multiple databases using criteria designed to include all studies published until November 2020 focusing on the treatment of human sinusitis following dental implantation. We selected all original studies, excluding case reports, specifying treatment modalities with objective treatment success definitions. Following duplicate removal, abstract and full-text selection, and quality assessment, we reviewed eligible articles for treatment modalities and success rates, which were pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Among 581 unique citations, eight studies (181 patients) were selected. Seven studies were retrospective case series. All studies relied on endoscopic sinus surgery, often coupled with intraoral accesses, and assessed therapeutic success endoscopically. The pooled treatment success rate was 94.7% (95% confidence interval, 91.5%-98%). Failures were treated in seven of 15 cases with further antibiotic therapies and in another seven cases with surgical revision. A single patient was lost to follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
Endoscopic sinus surgery appears to be the most frequent treatment of choice for sinusitis following dental implantation, with excellent success rates. The protean clinical picture drawn from the selected studies calls for the standardization of diagnostics and definitions in this field to enable direct comparisons between the results of different studies. The role of postoperative antibiotic therapies, which have been employed unevenly across studies, should also be prospectively investigated.
Topics: Humans; Retrospective Studies; Sinusitis; Maxillary Sinus; Endoscopy; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dental Implantation; Maxillary Sinusitis; Dental Implants
PubMed: 35244478
DOI: 10.1177/19458924221084484 -
Technology and Health Care : Official... 2023Dental implants provide a suitable and reliable treatment for the replacement of missing teeth. Very few studies have been reported in the literature regarding the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental implants provide a suitable and reliable treatment for the replacement of missing teeth. Very few studies have been reported in the literature regarding the application of dental implants in growing and developing patients.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to systematically review the available literature regarding the application of dental implants in growing and developing patients.
METHODS
A detailed search in the literature was performed with the help of keywords such as dental implants, treatment planning, children, adolescents, growing patients, and developing jaws. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Ovidsp databases were searched for papers published between 1980 and 2021. The papers focused on children, adolescents, developing jaws, and implants. In this systemic review, the dataset concerned with the type of study, aim, number of patients and specimens included, age of patients, total number of implants placed, total number of implants evaluated, medical history of developmental disorders of teeth such as ectodermal dysplasia, congenital absence of teeth, were evaluated.
RESULTS
Out of the total literature searched, 33.45% of studies and case reports documented no complications in any implant treatment. In 47.21% of studies and case reports, there was both success and failure of implants while in 13.21% of studies and case reports there was a complete failure of implants. The most common cause for loss of permanent teeth in growing children and adolescent patients was dental trauma (73.13%) followed by congenital developmental disturbance of teeth (18.19%).
CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from this systematic review that the use of implants in edentulous growing patients is determined by several parameters, including the patient's overall health, the stage of jaw growth, the number of teeth to be replaced, and soft and hard tissue anatomic features. Still, the use of a conservative treatment strategy for missing teeth management in patients with developing jaws is common and recommended until the patient's growth is completed, as there are chances of changes in the position of dental implants placed in the developing and growing jaws due to the continuous changes taking place in their body. However, placement of implants can be done in these patients successfully with proper treatment planning and taking into account the phase of growth with proper follow-up.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Dental Implants; Maxilla; Mandible
PubMed: 36502352
DOI: 10.3233/THC-220581 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Mar 2022How the performance of dental implants is related to their occlusogingival placement, crestal or subcrestal, is unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
How the performance of dental implants is related to their occlusogingival placement, crestal or subcrestal, is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters between implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal bone level.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials published up to September 2020. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and the inverse variance methods (α=.05).
RESULTS
The search identified 928 references, and 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 393 participants received 709 implants, 351 at crestal bone levels and 358 at subcrestal bone levels. Meta-analysis indicated that crestal bone level implants showed similar marginal bone loss to that seen with subcrestal bone level implants (mm) (P=.79), independent of the subcrestal level (P=.05) and healing protocol (P=.24). The bone level implant placement did not affect the implant survival rate (P=.76), keratinized tissue (mm) (P=.91), probing depth (mm) (P=.70), or plaque index (%) (P=.92).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence suggests that both approaches of implant placement are clinically acceptable in terms of peri-implant tissue parameters and implant-supported restoration survival.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Wound Healing
PubMed: 33358610
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.003 -
Dental Traumatology : Official... Apr 2022Treatment after traumatic tooth loss is challenging and is currently guided by expert opinion and the individual patient situation. The aim of this study was to provide... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/AIMS
Treatment after traumatic tooth loss is challenging and is currently guided by expert opinion and the individual patient situation. The aim of this study was to provide an overview on the outcome of dental implant treatment in the anterior maxilla after traumatic tooth loss, based on a systematic review of the existing evidence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was performed on PubMed, Cochran Library and Web of Science following the PRISMA guidelines based on a structured research question (PICO). All clinical studies of five patients or more with follow-up of at least 1 year after implant loading were included. Patients were at least 18 years of age. Cohen's Kappa-coefficient was calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the quality of the included studies. Descriptive statistical methods were applied.
RESULTS
Nine hundred and ninety-nine articles were identified through the systematic search. Finally, six articles were eligible for inclusion. The studies comprised prospective and retrospective cohort studies and case series. From these, 96 patients with 120 implants were included. The age ranged from 18 to 59 years. The survival rates of implants and superstructures were 97% and 95%, respectively, after a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Mean marginal bone resorption was 0.56 mm (range 0.21-1.30 mm). Complication rates were 7% and 11% on implant and superstructure level, respectively. Patient-reported outcome measures and objective evaluations showed a high level of satisfaction with the aesthetic outcome. Bone augmentation was performed in 60 implant sites. Three patients underwent pre-surgical orthodontic treatment. The maxillary central incisor was the most frequently replaced tooth (70%).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review revealed a low level of evidence on the outcome of dental implant treatment after traumatic tooth loss. Systematic reporting of treatment outcomes of tooth replacements after dental trauma is highly encouraged to further guide dentists for the benefit of these challenging patients.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Maxilla; Middle Aged; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Loss; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 34997947
DOI: 10.1111/edt.12730 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Dec 2023The aim of the systematic review was to compare studies on implant-supported two-unit cantilever crowns with two adjacent implant-supported crowns in the anterior...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the systematic review was to compare studies on implant-supported two-unit cantilever crowns with two adjacent implant-supported crowns in the anterior region. The second aim was to assess in a 10-year prospective comparative pilot study, hard and soft peri-implant tissue changes in patients with a missing central and adjacent lateral upper incisor, treated with either an implant-supported two-unit cantilever crown or two single implant-supported crowns.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched (last search March 1, 2023). Inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of two missing adjacent teeth in the esthetic region and treated with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis, or with two solitary implant-supported crowns. Outcome measures assessed included implant survival (primary), changes in marginal bone and gingiva level, restoration survival, subjective and objective esthetic scores, papilla volume, mid-facial marginal mucosa level, probing depth, bleeding on probing, and biological and technical complications with ≥1-year follow-up. In addition, in a 10-year pilot study, the same outcome measures were assessed of five patients with a single implant-supported two-unit cantilever crown and compared with five patients with two adjacent single implant-supported crowns in the esthetic zone.
RESULTS
Nine articles with 11 study groups were found eligible for data extraction. Meta-analyses of implant survival rates were 96.9% (mean follow-up 3.4 ± 1.4 years) for the implant-cantilever treatment and 97.6% (mean follow-up 3.0 ± 1.8 years) for the adjacent implants treatment (p = .79). In the 10-year comparative pilot study, no clinically relevant changes in hard and soft peri-implant tissue levels occurred in both groups. Patient satisfaction was also high in both groups.
CONCLUSION
Single implant-supported two-unit crowns can be a viable alternative to the placement of two adjacent single implant crowns in the esthetic zone.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Treatment Outcome; Pilot Projects; Dental Implants, Single-Tooth; Prospective Studies; Esthetics, Dental
PubMed: 37592440
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.773 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2023Photogrammetry technology may be useful in implant dentistry, but a systematic review is lacking and is indicated before routine use in clinical practice. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Photogrammetry technology may be useful in implant dentistry, but a systematic review is lacking and is indicated before routine use in clinical practice.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of the photogrammetry technology used in implant dentistry and determine its validity as an accurate tool with clinical applications.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Four major databases, PubMed MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, were selected to retrieve articles published from January 2011 to February 2021 based on custom criteria. The search was augmented by a manual search. After screening of the collected articles, data, including study design and setting, type of application, digitizer used, reference body, method of evaluation, and overall outcomes, were extracted.
RESULTS
Twenty articles were included based on the selection criteria. Most of the articles confirmed that the use of photogrammetry was promising as an implant coordinate transfer system. However, few articles showed its use for 3-dimensional scanning, which might require more development.
CONCLUSIONS
The initial reports of using photogrammetry technology considered this method as a valid and reliable clinical tool in implant dentistry. More studies to develop the photogrammetry technology and to assess the results with evidence-based research are recommended to enhance its application in different clinical situations.
Topics: Dental Implants; Photogrammetry; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 34801243
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.015