-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Journal of Biological Regulators and... 2021Radiotherapy to head and neck has always been considered as a risk factor for rehabilitation with dental implants. Nevertheless, recent data suggest that overall, 5-year... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Radiotherapy to head and neck has always been considered as a risk factor for rehabilitation with dental implants. Nevertheless, recent data suggest that overall, 5-year implant survival in irradiated patients can be greater than 90%. The purpose of this review was to compare the implant survival rates of irradiated and non-radiated head and neck cancer sites, and discuss the outcomes, through a systematic review approach of prospective and retrospective studies. Electronic searches were performed in the EMBASE, Cochrane, and PubMed/Medline databases up to 2019 Dec, to identify retrospective and prospective clinical studies addressing the subject. This systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary variables collected from the studies were the site of tumor, age and sex of the patient, site of implant placement, radiation dosage, frequency and duration of radiotherapy, follow-up duration, implant survival and stability, hard and soft tissue changes after implant placement, any type of biological and mechanical complication, and oral health quality of life (QOL). Fifteen studies including 1097 patients and a total of 4637 implants placed in irradiated and non-irradiated sites, with a follow up duration varying from 6 to 120 months, were selected for the systematic review. The results of the quantitative synthesis suggested statistically significantly better survival rate of implants placed in nonradiated sites, as compared to irradiated sites (p<0.00001). However, the cumulative survival rates over a period of 7-10 years were reported to be comparable. Quality of life (QOL) after implant rehabilitation was not found to be significantly different between the compared groups. Due to the limited number of information, insufficient data was available to draw conclusion on peri-implant complication rate. No relationship was found between age, gender, and implant survival rates. Implant placement in irradiated sites is challenging and often warrants protocol modifications. Although statistically the survival rates at irradiated sites were lower in comparison to non-radiated sites, a strict inclusion criterion in patient selection, timing of implant placement after radiotherapy, radiation dosage and regular oral hygiene maintenance could minimize the chances of implant failure in irradiated patients.
Topics: Dental Implants; Humans; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Survival Rate
PubMed: 34281302
DOI: 10.23812/21-2supp1-5 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Feb 2022The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between specific genetic polymorphisms and dental implant-related biological complications in patients...
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the association between specific genetic polymorphisms and dental implant-related biological complications in patients having a follow-up period of at least 12-months post-loading.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A sensitive search strategy was developed to identify implant-related genetic-association studies. This was performed by searching five databases. A three-stage screening (titles, abstract, full text) was carried out in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Assessment was carried out according to the suggested scale for quality assessment of periodontal genetic-association studies and adapted to genetic analyses of implant-related studies leading to an overall final score 0-20 based on the summation of positive answers.
RESULTS
The initial search resulted in 1838 articles. Sixty-seven full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and four studies met the defined inclusion criteria. IL-6 G174C, TNF-α -308, IL-1A-889 and IL-1B+3954 and CD14-159 C/T polymorphisms were evaluated. The quality assessment scores ranged from 6 to 11 positive answers from out of a maximum score of 20. The great heterogeneity among the studies did not allow a meta-analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
The published evidence on genetic predisposition and implant biologic complications is limited. The small number of identified studies evaluating the association between genetic polymorphisms and peri-implant disease presented methodological and reporting inadequacies. Thus, the potential link between genetic polymorphisms and biological complications should be further investigated and clarified through well-designed clinical studies on adequately powered and appropriately included study populations.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Polymorphism, Genetic
PubMed: 34820916
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13882 -
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 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Mar 2017The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate implant loss in younger and older patients. An electronic search of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate implant loss in younger and older patients. An electronic search of four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library) was undertaken until May 2016 without time restriction and was supplemented by manual searching. Prospective cohorts were included if they met the following criteria: (i) presence of an exposed group (older subjects) with a minimum age of 60 years; (ii) presence of a control group (younger subjects) with a maximum age of 59 years; and (iii) outcome data considering implant survival or loss. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of ageing on implant failure. Of 4152 potentially eligible articles, four were included in the qualitative analysis and quantitative synthesis. The pooled estimates suggest that the risk of implant loss in older patients is not significantly higher (RR = 0·92; 95% CI 0·43-1·96, P = 0·83) when compared to younger subjects. This systematic review suggests that age is not a limiting factor for dental implant therapy.
Topics: Age Factors; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 27917518
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12465 -
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 -
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