-
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 -
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 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 -
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection... 2021After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
After insertion into the bone, implants osseointegrate, which is required for their long-term success. However, inflammation and infection around the implants may lead to implant failure leading to peri-implantitis and loss of supporting bone, which may eventually lead to failure of implant. Surface chemistry of the implant and lack of cleanliness on the part of the patient are related to peri-implantitis. The only way to get rid of this infection is decontamination of dental implants.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review intended to study decontamination of microbial biofilm methods on titanium implant surfaces used in dentistry.
METHODS
The electronic databases Springer Link, Science Direct, and PubMed were explored from their inception until December 2020 to identify relevant studies. Studies included had to evaluate the efficiency of new strategies either to prevent formation of biofilm or to treat matured biofilm on dental implant surfaces.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In this systematic review, 17 different groups of decontamination methods were summarized from 116 studies. The decontamination methods included coating materials, mechanical cleaning, laser treatment, photodynamic therapy, air polishing, anodizing treatment, radiation, sonication, thermal treatment, ultrasound treatment, chemical treatment, electrochemical treatment, antimicrobial drugs, argon treatment, and probiotics.
CONCLUSION
The findings suggest that most of the decontamination methods were effective in preventing the formation of biofilm and in decontaminating established biofilm on dental implants. This narrative review provides a summary of methods for future research in the development of new dental implants and decontamination techniques.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Biofilms; Decontamination; Dental Implants; Humans; Peri-Implantitis
PubMed: 34692562
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.736186 -
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 -
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 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2023Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are growing in dental implant procedures. The current expansion and performance of AI models in implant dentistry applications...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence (AI) applications are growing in dental implant procedures. The current expansion and performance of AI models in implant dentistry applications have not yet been systematically documented and analyzed.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the performance of AI models in implant dentistry for implant type recognition, implant success prediction by using patient risk factors and ontology criteria, and implant design optimization combining finite element analysis (FEA) calculations and AI models.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic systematic review was completed in 5 databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Peer-reviewed studies that developed AI models for implant type recognition, implant success prediction, and implant design optimization were included. The search strategy included articles published until February 21, 2021. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (nonrandomized experimental studies). A third investigator was consulted to resolve lack of consensus.
RESULTS
Seventeen articles were included: 7 investigations analyzed AI models for implant type recognition, 7 studies included AI prediction models for implant success forecast, and 3 studies evaluated AI models for optimization of implant designs. The AI models developed to recognize implant type by using periapical and panoramic images obtained an overall accuracy outcome ranging from 93.8% to 98%. The models to predict osteointegration success or implant success by using different input data varied among the studies, ranging from 62.4% to 80.5%. Finally, the studies that developed AI models to optimize implant designs seem to agree on the applicability of AI models to improve the design of dental implants. This improvement includes minimizing the stress at the implant-bone interface by 36.6% compared with the finite element model; optimizing the implant design porosity, length, and diameter to improve the finite element calculations; or accurately determining the elastic modulus of the implant-bone interface.
CONCLUSIONS
AI models for implant type recognition, implant success prediction, and implant design optimization have demonstrated great potential but are still in development. Additional studies are indispensable to the further development and assessment of the clinical performance of AI models for those implant dentistry applications reviewed.
Topics: Humans; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Porosity
PubMed: 34144789
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.008 -
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 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Oct 2021This systematic review assesses dental implant survival, calculates the incidence rate of osteoradionecrosis, and evaluates risk factors in irradiated head and neck... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review assesses dental implant survival, calculates the incidence rate of osteoradionecrosis, and evaluates risk factors in irradiated head and neck cancer patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Various databases (e.g., Medline/Embase using Ovid) and gray literature platforms were searched using a combination of keywords and subject headings. When appropriate, meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model. Otherwise, pooled analysis was applied.
RESULTS
A total of 425 of the 660 included patients received radiotherapy. In total, 2602 dental implants were placed, and 1637 were placed in irradiated patients. Implant survival after an average follow-up of 37.7 months was 97% (5% confidence interval, CI 95.2%, 95% CI 98.3%) in nonirradiated patients and 91.9% (5% CI 87.7%, 95% CI: 95.3%) after an average follow-up of 39.8 months in irradiated patients. Osteoradionecrosis occurred in 11 cases, leading to an incidence of 3% (5% CI 1.6%, 95% CI 4.9%). The main factors impacting implant survival were radiation and grafting status, while factors influencing osteoradionecrosis could not be determined using meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Our data show that implant survival in irradiated patients is lower than in nonirradiated patients, and osteoradionecrosis is-while rare-a serious complication that any OMF surgeon should be prepared for. The key to success could be a standardized patient selection and therapy to improve the standard of care, reduce risks and shorten treatment time.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Our analysis provides further evidence that implant placement is a feasible treatment option in irradiated head and neck cancer patients with diminished oral function and good long-term cancer prognosis.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Osteoradionecrosis
PubMed: 34401944
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04065-6 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Sep 2023The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Selection criteria for immediate implant placement and immediate loading for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to review available evidence for Type 1A (immediate implant placement and immediate loading) of single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted utilizing the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane to identify publications reporting on the outcomes of Type 1A for single tooth replacement in the maxillary esthetic zone. The success and survival rates of the included articles were reported, which were further categorized according to the clinical criteria reported in Type 1A. Mean survival rates were univariately compared between risk groups and additionally between studies published before and since 2012 using bias-corrected and study size-weighed bootstrap tests. A study time-correcting meta-analysis was then performed to obtain an overall effect for the study pool.
RESULTS
A total of 3118 publications were identified in the search, with a total of 68 articles included. A mean number of implants per study were 37.2 and mean follow-up was 2.8 years. All the included studies utilizing Type 1A report highly selective inclusion and exclusion criteria. Univariate risk group comparison determined that studies before 2012 report a significantly lower mean survival rate (difference of -1.9 percentage points [PP], 95% CI: [-0.3, -4.0], p = .02), facial gap dimension had an impact on survival rates (+3.1 PP [0.2, 5.3] for width >2 mm, p = .04), as well as presence of endodontic infection (+2.6 PP [0.9, 5.1], p = .004).
CONCLUSIONS
Type 1A has a high survival rate in studies reporting strict patient and site selection criteria. Further research is required to assess esthetic and functional success with Type 1A treatments.
Topics: Humans; Patient Selection; Dental Implants; Esthetics, Dental; Databases, Factual
PubMed: 37750515
DOI: 10.1111/clr.14109