-
The International Journal of Oral &... 2023To evaluate the performance of one- and two-piece ceramic implants regarding implant survival and success and patient satisfaction. This review followed the PRISMA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To evaluate the performance of one- and two-piece ceramic implants regarding implant survival and success and patient satisfaction. This review followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines using PICO format and analyzed clinical studies of partially or completely edentulous patients. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) keywords related to dental zirconia ceramic implants, and 1,029 records were received for detailed screening. The data obtained from the literature were analyzed by single-arm, weighted meta-analyses using a random-effects model. Forest plots were used to synthesize pooled means and 95% CI for the change in marginal bone level (MBL) for short-term (1 year), mid-term (2 to 5 years), and long-term (over 5 years) follow-up time intervals. Among the 155 included studies, the case reports, review articles, and preclinical studies were analyzed for background information. A meta-analysis was performed for 11 studies for one-piece implants. The results indicated that the MBL change after 1 year was 0.94 ± 0.11 mm, with a lower bound of 0.72 and an upper bound of 1.16. For the mid term, the MBL was 1.2 ± 0.14 mm with a lower bound of 0.92 and an upper bound of 1.48. For the long term, the MBL change was 1.24 ± 0.16 mm with a lower bound of 0.92 and an upper bound of 1.56. Based on this literature review, one-piece ceramic implants achieve osseointegration similar to titanium implants, with a stable MBL or a slight bone gain after an individual initial design depending on crestal remodeling. The risk of implant fracture is low for current commercially available implants. Immediate loading or temporization of the implants does not interfere with the course of osseointegration. Scientific evidence for two-piece implants is rare.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Ceramics; Dental Restoration, Temporary; Mouth, Edentulous; Osseointegration
PubMed: 37436947
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.10500 -
Journal of Biological Regulators and... 2020The conventional use of prosthetic custom-design socket is affected by discomfort related to wellknown problems: sweating, sores or skin irritation, excessive weight and...
The conventional use of prosthetic custom-design socket is affected by discomfort related to wellknown problems: sweating, sores or skin irritation, excessive weight and harness, impaired body image, that lead to a high rate of abandonment. Osseointegrated prosthetic implants for limb amputation are progressively evolving to overcome limitations of socket. The aim of this article is to present a systematic review of the use, safety in terms of rate of infection and complications, and reported outcomes of upper and lower limb osseointegrated prosthetic implants. A systematic search was carried out for studies that evaluated outcomes of osseointegration technique in case of upper and lower limb amputees according to the PRISMA guidelines with a PRISMA checklist and algorithm. MINORS score was used for methodologic assessment. 17 articles about the treatment of patients with upper or lower limb amputation treated with an osseointegrated prostesis were included. The overall rate of infections was 32%. All the clinical outcomes reported were related to lower limb. No clinical data for upper limb was found. The postoperative mean value of MCS and PCS SF-36 and Q-TFA was 55.1, 45.4 and 73.8 respectively, while six minute walk test (6MWT) and the timed up and go (TUG) test scored an average value of 388 meters and 11.5 seconds respectively. MINORS score ranged from 5 to 13, with a median of 11 [interquartile range (IQR), 9-11]. The osseointegration is associated to a high rate of postoperative complications but, significant improvement in clinical outcomes compared to preoperative time are shown. The data available from the literature are limited but suggest good clinical outcomes and significant survivorship of the implants. Further clinical studies are needed to establish which kind of implant is associated to higher clinical performance and lower rate of postoperative complications and infections.
Topics: Amputation, Surgical; Amputees; Artificial Limbs; Humans; Osseointegration; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Implantation; Treatment Outcome; Upper Extremity
PubMed: 33261296
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Aug 2018Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems have unique advantages and disadvantages. The aim of the present systematic review was to determine the influence of splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems on the marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for articles published up to October 2017, using the following search terms: "overdenture AND attachment OR overdenture AND bar OR overdenture splinted." The PICO question "Do splinted overdenture attachment systems promote better clinical results in comparison to unsplinted systems?" was evaluated. Eligible studies included randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective studies with at least 10 participants and a minimum follow-up of 6 months, and studies published in English that compared splinted and unsplinted attachment systems within the same study. The 95% confidence interval (CI) was considered for all outcomes analysed. After completion of the different steps in the article selection process, nine articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 984 implants were placed in 380 patients (mean age: 62.8 years). The meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant differences between splinted and unsplinted attachment systems with regard to marginal bone loss (P = .39; MD: -0.11; 95% CI: -0.37 to 0.14), complications (P = .31; RR: 1.26; CI: 0.80-1.99) and implant survival rate (P = .14; RR: 0.37% CI: 0.10-1.36). In addition, splinted and unsplinted overdenture attachment systems achieved similar results with regard to marginal bone loss, prosthetic complications and implant survival rate.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture Design; Denture Precision Attachment; Denture Retention; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Osseointegration; Periodontal Attachment Loss
PubMed: 29761853
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12651 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2017In indexed literature, a systematic review of the efficacy of statins in enhancing osseointegration is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
In indexed literature, a systematic review of the efficacy of statins in enhancing osseointegration is lacking. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy of local and systemic statin delivery on the osseointegration of implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To address the focused question, "Does local and systemic statin delivery affect osseointegration around implants?", indexed databases were searched from 1965 through November 2015 using various keywords. Letters to the Editor, case reports/case series, historic reviews, and commentaries were excluded. The pattern of this systematic review was customized to primarily summarize the pertinent data.
RESULTS
Nineteen studies were included. All studies were experimental and were performed in animal models. In seven studies, statins were delivered systemically via oral, intraperitoneal, intraosseous, subcutaneous, and percutaneous routes. Among the 12 studies, where statins were delivered locally, statin-coated implants were used in seven studies, whereas in the remaining studies, statins were delivered via topical application on the bone cavities. The follow-up duration ranged between 1 and 12 weeks. Results from 18 studies showed that statin administration enhanced new bone formation (NBF) around implants and/or bone-to-implant contact. One study showed that statin-coated implant surfaces impaired osseointegration. Seven studies reported that statin administration enhanced NBF around implants in osteoporotic rats.
CONCLUSION
On experimental grounds, local and systemic statin delivery seems to enhance osseointegration; however, from a clinical perspective, further studies are needed to assess the role of statins in promoting osseointegration around dental implants.
Topics: Animals; Coated Materials, Biocompatible; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Drug Administration Routes; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Models, Animal; Osseointegration; Rats; Titanium
PubMed: 28494034
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4955 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Mar 2018To our knowledge from indexed literature, the present study is the first one to systematically review the influence of local delivery of pamidronate (PAM) and/or...
PURPOSE
To our knowledge from indexed literature, the present study is the first one to systematically review the influence of local delivery of pamidronate (PAM) and/or ibandronate (IBA) on osseointegration enhancement. The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the efficacy of IBA and/or PAM local delivery (topically or coating on implants surfaces) in promoting osseointegration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To address the focused question, "Does local IBA and/or PAM delivery enhances osseointegration?," indexed databases were searched without time or language restrictions up to and including May 2016 using various combinations of the following keywords: "pamidronate," "ibandronate," "bisphosphonates," "osseointegration," and "topical administration." Letters to the Editor, historic reviews, commentaries, case series, and case reports were excluded.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies were included. Fourteen studies were performed in animals and 2 were clinical trials. One study reported an experimental model and a clinical trial in the same publication. Results from 12 experimental studies and 2 clinical studies reported improved biomechanical properties and/or osseointegration around implants with PAM and/or IBA. Two experimental studies showed that PAM and/or IBA did not improve osseointegration.
CONCLUSIONS
On experimental grounds, local IBA and/or PAM delivery seems to enhance osseointegration; however, from a clinical perspective, further randomized control trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of IBA and PAM in promoting osseointegration around dental implants.
Topics: Administration, Topical; Bone Density Conservation Agents; Humans; Ibandronic Acid; Osseointegration; Pamidronate
PubMed: 27870311
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12571 -
International Journal of Oral and... Jul 2017There is controversy regarding whether locally delivered alendronate enhances osseointegration. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of local... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
There is controversy regarding whether locally delivered alendronate enhances osseointegration. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of local alendronate delivery (topical, or as a coating on implant surfaces) in the osseointegration of implants. The focused question was, "Does the local delivery of alendronate affect osseointegration around implants?". To address this question, indexed databases were searched, without time or language restriction, up to and including January 2017. Various combinations of the following key words were used: "alendronate", "bisphosphonates", "osseointegration", and "topical administration". letters to the editor, historic reviews, commentaries, case series, and case reports were excluded. In total, 18 experimental studies were included: alendronate-coated implants were used in 13 of these studies and local delivery in five studies. The results of 11 of the studies showed that alendronate coating increased new bone formation, the bone volume fraction, or bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and biomechanical properties. Results from two studies in which alendronate was administered topically indicated impaired BIC and/or biomechanical fixation around implants. On experimental grounds, local alendronate delivery seems to promote osseointegration. From a clinical perspective, the results in animal models support phase 1 studies in healthy humans (without co-morbidities other than edentulism).
Topics: Administration, Topical; Alendronate; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Diphosphonates; Humans; Osseointegration
PubMed: 28366449
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2017.03.009 -
Lasers in Medical Science Sep 2023Despite their high success rates, peri-implantitis can affect the stability and function of dental implants. Various treatment modalities have been investigated for the...
Despite their high success rates, peri-implantitis can affect the stability and function of dental implants. Various treatment modalities have been investigated for the treatment of peri-implantitis to achieve re-osseointegration. An electronic literature search was performed supplemented by a manual search to identify studies published until January 2022. Articles that evaluated re-osseointegration in peri-implantitis sites in animal models following laser therapy or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) were included. Case reports, case series, systematic reviews, and letters to the editor were excluded. Risk of bias and GRADE assessment were followed to evaluate the quality of the evidence. Six studies out of 26 articles identified on electronic search were included in this review. The studies included animal studies conducted on canine models. Four out of six studies reported a higher degree of re-osseointegration following treatment of implants with laser therapy. The findings suggest that laser decontamination shows potential in enhancing re-osseointegration, particularly with the Er: YAG laser, which effectively decontaminated implant surfaces. However, conflicting outcomes and limitations in the evidence quality warrant caution in drawing definitive conclusions. Based on the limited available evidence, laser therapy may show a higher degree of re-osseointegration of implants than mechanical debridement.
Topics: Animals; Dental Implants; Lasers; Osseointegration; Peri-Implantitis; Photochemotherapy
PubMed: 37658921
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-023-03860-9 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) May 2019The field of dental implantology has made progress in recent years, allowing safer and predictable oral rehabilitations. Surely the rehabilitation times have also been... (Review)
Review
The field of dental implantology has made progress in recent years, allowing safer and predictable oral rehabilitations. Surely the rehabilitation times have also been reduced, thanks to the advent of the new implant surfaces, which favour the osseointegration phases and allow the clinician to rehabilitate their patients earlier. To carry out this study, a search was conducted in the Pubmed, Embase and Elsevier databases; the articles initially obtained according to the keywords used numbered 283, and then subsequently reduced to 10 once the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The review that has been carried out on this type of surface allows us to fully understand the features and above all to evaluate all the advantages or not related. The study materials also are supported by a manufacturing company, which provided all the indications regarding surface treatment and confocal microscopy scans. In conclusion, we can say that, thanks to these new surfaces, it has been possible to shorten the time necessary to obtain osseointegration and, therefore, secondary stability on the part of implants. The surfaces, therefore, guarantee an improved cellular adhesion and thanks to the excellent wettability all the biological processes that derive from it, such as increases in the exposed implant surface, resulting in an increase in bone-implant contact (BIC).
PubMed: 31151256
DOI: 10.3390/ma12111763 -
Dentistry Journal Sep 2021Hyperlipidemia is a well-recognized risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which, in turn, acts as a contributory factor in periodontitis development. Periodontitis has... (Review)
Review
Hyperlipidemia is a well-recognized risk factor for cardiovascular disease, which, in turn, acts as a contributory factor in periodontitis development. Periodontitis has been associated with benign tumors and cancers and withseveral disorders, including hyperlipidemia. Correspondingly, periodontal treatment may exert a positive effect on lipid metabolism, although opposite evidence has also been reported. As a counterpart, the therapy for hyperlipidemia, conventionally based on statins, has been proposed to positively affect periodontal conditions, mainly due to statin pleiotropic effects, reducing periodontal inflammation and promoting osseointegration. Therefore, the present systematic review aimed to evaluate, in subjects with untreated periodontitis and peri-implant disease (Population), the effect of routine systemically administered statins (Intervention), compared to non-statin use (Comparison), on periodontal parameters around natural teeth and implants (Outcome). Discordant results were found in periodontal parameters, and the current lack of such data related to peri-implant tissues and to alveolar bone loss highlights the need for further studies on the topic, potentially paving the way for a more comprehensive approach to periodontitis and peri-implantitis management. Indeed, the validation of the beneficial effect provided by systemically delivered statins on periodontal and peri-implant tissues may direct recall scheduling, predict response to therapy and, therefore, guide treatment strategies of periodontal and peri-implant treatments in statin users.
PubMed: 34562974
DOI: 10.3390/dj9090100 -
The Laryngoscope Apr 2024This review aims to quantify the pooled functional gain (FG) in different types of hearing loss with the transcutaneous hearing device, Osia (Cochlear, Sydney,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to quantify the pooled functional gain (FG) in different types of hearing loss with the transcutaneous hearing device, Osia (Cochlear, Sydney, Australia) in comparison with the unaided state. Secondary outcomes are patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and complication rates.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Cochrane CENTRAL, PROSPERO and Cochrane Library.
REVIEW METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of indexed search terms relating to "Osia," "Osseointegration," "Cochlear Implant," and "Bone-Anchored Prosthesis" was performed from database inception to September 20, 2022.
RESULTS
Of the 168 studies identified, 14 studies with 15 patient cohorts (n = 314) met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Pooled overall mean FG for all types of hearing loss was 35.0 dB sound pressure level (SPL) (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.12-40.97) compared against unaided hearing. Pooled FG for conductive/mixed hearing loss was 37.7 dB SPL (95% CI 26.1-49.3). Pooled single-sided deafness (SSD) FG could not be calculated due to the small patient cohort for whom SSD data was reported. There is a trend toward improvements in speech receptiveness threshold, signal to noise ratio, and some PROMs compared with baseline hearing. Early complication rates demonstrate risks similar to other transcutaneous implants, with a low predicted explantation (0.11%, 95% CI 0.00%-1.90%) and wound infection rate (1.92% [95% CI 0.00%-6.17%]). No articles directly comparing transcutaneous devices were identified.
CONCLUSION
The Osia devices demonstrate clear audiologic benefits and a good safety profile for the included patient population. Our study results indicate that frequency-specific gain, PROMs, and the audiological benefit in single-sided deafness may be areas for future prospective research. Laryngoscope, 134:1531-1539, 2024.
Topics: Humans; Bone Conduction; Hearing Aids; Cochlear Implants; Hearing Loss, Conductive; Hearing Loss; Deafness; Speech Perception; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 37721219
DOI: 10.1002/lary.31053