-
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jan 2019To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6 mm extra-short implants (test group) versus ≥10 mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To compare the clinical outcomes of ≤6 mm extra-short implants (test group) versus ≥10 mm long implants (control group), with and without bone augmentation procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systemic literature search of randomized clinical trials was performed using the PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to compare all the outcome variables. Meta-regression analysis determined the effect of bone augmentation procedures and the influence of other clinical covariates on the results.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies comprising 1,612 implants (793 extra-short and 820 long implants) were selected for the meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference in the survival rate was observed at 1 and 3 years (p > 0.05). Extra-short implants displayed less marginal bone loss (MBL) from both implant placement time points (1 and 3 years) and prosthetic placement (1 year), as well as less biological complications, surgical time and treatment cost (p < 0.05). Contrarily, a statistically significant small number of prosthetic complications were reported with long implants (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Placement of extra-short implants (≤6 mm) presented as an equivalent option in the treatment of patients with an atrophic posterior arch up to 3-year follow-up. However, the long-term effectiveness of extra-short dental implants remains to be further studied.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30362137
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13026 -
Cureus Jan 2022The variety in shape and type of dental implants in the present time is considered one of the most successful evolutions in dentistry. This facilitates dental treatment... (Review)
Review
The variety in shape and type of dental implants in the present time is considered one of the most successful evolutions in dentistry. This facilitates dental treatment options to restore patient function and appearance. However, numerous significant factors influence the predictability of survival or the success rates of dental implants, some of which, such as vitamin D levels, have not been included in many studies. The main purpose of this systematic review was to investigate whether there is a relationship between low serum levels of vitamin D and early dental implant failures (EDIFs). Our literature search involved international databases including PubMed, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and Web of Science. Initially, according to our search criteria, 1200 studies were found. After excluding duplicates, incomplete studies, and studies not meeting our inclusion criteria, only six human studies were included in this research and analyzed. Finally, upon meticulous analysis of included studies, this systematic review revealed inconsistent results in articles with respect to the association between vitamin D deficiency and implant failures. Large-scale studies, especially clinically relevant studies, on this subject is recommended.
PubMed: 35178319
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.21264 -
Dental Materials Journal 2016Biofilm formation on dental implant surfaces is a serious threat. Up to 50% of all implants show signs of irreversible tissue destruction. The aim of the present... (Review)
Review
Biofilm formation on dental implant surfaces is a serious threat. Up to 50% of all implants show signs of irreversible tissue destruction. The aim of the present systematic review was to summarize the state of the art of strategies to functionalize antimicrobial dental implant surfaces. We searched the following electronic database: SCOPUS, MEDLINE and GOOGLE SCHOLAR and identified relevant controlled trials that evaluated the efficiency of new biomaterial strategies to modify dental implant surfaces, in such a way that biofilm formation was inhibited. The search yielded 2,990 potentially relevant publications. A total of 142 publications met the inclusion criteria. Analysis found that it may be concluded that silver-implanted surfaces, drug-loaded surfaces, surfaces with antimicrobial peptides, bioactive and biopassive polymer coatings as well as nanoscale or UV-activatable surfaces enhance antimicrobial activity compared to commercial pure titanium.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Titanium
PubMed: 27477219
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-314 -
Journal of Indian Society of... 2023Dental implant is a material used in replacing missing teeth. The osseointegration process of dental implants will be affected by the macrodesign of the fixtures. This... (Review)
Review
Dental implant is a material used in replacing missing teeth. The osseointegration process of dental implants will be affected by the macrodesign of the fixtures. This study aimed to review the dental implant macrodesign in the past 10 years. This study was conducted in a systematic review method using two electronic databases (PUBMED and Science Direct). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the last 10 years were used for this review. All the search results were filtered using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses and should fulfill some predefined inclusion criteria. The last step was to assess the methodological quality of the studies using the JBI Checklist for RCT. The search identified 357 studies with only 23 that going through full-text analysis, resulting in 14 articles included in the review. In total, 19 different implant brands were used in 12 different countries. Dental implant macrodesigns were divided into collar design, implant shape, thread geometry, and platform design. The macrodesign features of the implant were mostly developed in the variation of thread geometry and collar design.
PubMed: 37152458
DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_676_21 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2021Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alveolar bone changes following tooth extraction can compromise prosthodontic rehabilitation. Alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) has been proposed to limit these changes and improve prosthodontic and aesthetic outcomes when implants are used. This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effects of various materials and techniques for ARP after tooth extraction compared with extraction alone or other methods of ARP, or both, in patients requiring dental implant placement following healing of extraction sockets.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 19 March 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2021, Issue 2), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 19 March 2021), Embase Ovid (1980 to 19 March 2021), Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database (1982 to 19 March 2021), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 March 2021), Scopus (1966 to 19 March 2021), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 19 March 2021), and OpenGrey (to 19 March 2021). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. A number of journals were also handsearched.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of ARP techniques with at least six months of follow-up. Outcome measures were: changes in the bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge, changes in the vertical height of the alveolar ridge, complications, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, aesthetic outcomes, implant failure rates, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, changes in probing depths and clinical attachment levels at teeth adjacent to the extraction site, and complications of future prosthodontic rehabilitation.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Corresponding authors were contacted to obtain missing information. We estimated mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables to present the main findings and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 16 RCTs conducted worldwide involving a total of 524 extraction sites in 426 adult participants. We assessed four trials as at overall high risk of bias and the remaining trials at unclear risk of bias. Nine new trials were included in this update with six new trials in the category of comparing ARP to extraction alone and three new trials in the category of comparing different grafting materials. ARP versus extraction: from the seven trials comparing xenografts with extraction alone, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge width (MD -1.18 mm, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.54; P = 0.0003; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites), and height (MD -1.35 mm, 95% CI -2.00 to -0.70; P < 0.0001; 6 studies, 184 participants, 201 extraction sites) in favour of xenografts, but we found no evidence of a significant difference for the need for additional augmentation (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62; P = 0.39; 4 studies, 154 participants, 156 extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence) or in implant failure rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 2 studies, 70 participants/extraction sites; very low-certainty evidence). From the one trial comparing alloplasts versus extraction, there is very low-certainty evidence of a reduction in loss of alveolar ridge height (MD -3.73 mm; 95% CI -4.05 to -3.41; 1 study, 15 participants, 60 extraction sites) in favour of alloplasts. This single trial did not report any other outcomes. Different grafting materials for ARP: three trials (87 participants/extraction sites) compared allograft versus xenograft, two trials (37 participants, 55 extraction sites) compared alloplast versus xenograft, one trial (20 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with and without membrane, one trial (18 participants, 36 extraction sites) compared allograft with and without synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15, and one trial (30 participants/extraction sites) compared alloplast with different particle sizes. The evidence was of very low certainty for most comparisons and insufficient to determine whether there are clinically significant differences between different ARP techniques based on changes in alveolar ridge width and height, the need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement, or implant failure. We found no trials which evaluated parameters relating to clinical attachment levels, specific aesthetic or prosthodontic outcomes for any of the comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported with most trials indicating that the procedure was uneventful. Among the complications reported were delayed healing with partial exposure of the buccal plate at suture removal, postoperative pain and swelling, moderate glazing, redness and oedema, membrane exposure and partial loss of grafting material, and fibrous adhesions at the cervical part of previously preserved sockets, for the comparisons xenografts versus extraction, allografts versus xenografts, alloplasts versus xenografts, and alloplasts with and without membrane.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ARP techniques may minimise the overall changes in residual ridge height and width six months after extraction but the evidence is very uncertain. There is lack of evidence of any differences in the need for additional augmentation at the time of implant placement, implant failure, aesthetic outcomes, or any other clinical parameters due to lack of information or long-term data. There is no evidence of any clinically significant difference between different grafting materials and barriers used for ARP. Further long-term RCTs that follow CONSORT guidelines (www.consort-statement.org) are necessary.
Topics: Adult; Alveolar Process; Alveolar Ridge Augmentation; Bias; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Remodeling; Confidence Intervals; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Heterografts; Humans; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Extraction; Tooth Socket; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33899930
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub3 -
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related... Aug 2021To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture-socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To assess the efficacy of using a bone substitute material (BSM) in the fixture-socket gap in patients undergoing tooth extraction and immediate implant placement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs were screened for eligibility, and data were extracted by two authors independently. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using Cochrane's ROB tool 2.0. Primary outcomes were implant failure, overall complications, and soft-tissue esthetics. Secondary outcomes were vertical buccal bone resorption, vertical interproximal bone resorption, horizontal buccal bone resorption, and mid-buccal mucosal recession. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model with generic inverse variance weighing. GRADE was used to grade the certainty of the evidence.
RESULTS
After screening 19 544 potentially eligible references, 20 RCTs were included in this review, with a total of 848 patients (916 sites). Most included RCTs were deemed of some concerns (53%) or at low (38%) risk of bias, except for overall complications (high ROB). Implant failure did not differ significantly RR = 0.92 (confidence intervals [CI] 0.34 to 2.46) between using a BSM compared with not using a BSM (NoBSM). BSM use resulted in less horizontal buccal bone resorption (MD = -0.52 mm [95% CI -0.74 to -0.30]), a higher esthetic score (MD = 1.49 [95% CI 0.46 to 2.53]), but also more complications (RR = 3.50 [95% CI 1.11 to 11.1] compared with NoBSM. Too few trials compared types of BSMs against each other to allow for pooled analyses. The certainty of the evidence was considered moderate for all outcomes except implant failure (low), overall complications (very low), and vertical interproximal bone resorption (very low).
CONCLUSION
BSM use during immediate implant placement reduces horizontal buccal bone resorption and improves the periimplant soft-tissue esthetics. Although BSM use increases the risk of predominantly minor complications.
Topics: Bone Substitutes; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Tooth Extraction
PubMed: 34118175
DOI: 10.1111/cid.13014 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Feb 2024To assess which decontamination method(s) used for the debridement of titanium surfaces (disks and dental implants) contaminated with bacterial, most efficiently... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of mechanical and chemical decontamination methods for the treatment of dental implant surfaces affected by peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To assess which decontamination method(s) used for the debridement of titanium surfaces (disks and dental implants) contaminated with bacterial, most efficiently eliminate bacterial biofilms.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in four electronic databases between January 1, 2010 and October 31, 2022. The search strategy followed the PICOS format and included only in vitro studies completed on either dental implant or titanium disk samples. The assessed outcome variable consisted of the most effective method(s)-chemical or mechanical- removing bacterial biofilm from titanium surfaces. A meta-analysis was conducted, and data was summarized through single- and multi-level random effects model (p < .05).
RESULTS
The initial search resulted in 5260 articles after the removal of duplicates. After assessment by title, abstract, and full-text review, a total of 13 articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Different decontamination methods were assessed, including both mechanical and chemical, with the most common method across studies being chlorhexidine (CHX). Significant heterogeneity was noted across the included studies. The meta-analyses only identified a significant difference in biofilm reduction when CHX treatment was compared against PBS. The remaining comparisons did not identify significant differences between the various decontamination methods.
CONCLUSIONS
The present results do not demonstrate that one method of decontamination is superior in eliminating bacterial biofilm from titanium disk and implant surfaces.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Dental Implants; Titanium; Decontamination; Chlorhexidine; Bacteria
PubMed: 38345466
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.839 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Jun 2021The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical outcomes of frameworks made of different materials in patients with implant-supported full-arch... (Review)
Review
The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical outcomes of frameworks made of different materials in patients with implant-supported full-arch prostheses. A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus and Cochrane Library, until the 1st of March 2021, with the following search terms: framework or substructure combined with "dental implants". The outcomes evaluated were: implant and prosthesis survival, bone resorption, biological and technical complications. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was employed to assess the risk of bias in randomized clinical trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used for non-randomized studies. In total, 924 records were evaluated for title and abstract, and 11 studies were included in the review: 4 clinical randomized trials and 7 cohort studies. The framework materials investigated were: gold alloy, titanium, silver-palladium alloy, zirconia and polymers including acrylic resin and carbon-fiber-reinforced composites. High implant and prosthetic cumulative survival rates were recorded by all included studies. Various materials and different fabrication techniques are now available as alternatives to traditional cast metal frameworks, for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations. Further long-term studies are needed to validate the use of these materials and clarify their specific clinical indications and manufacturing protocols to optimize their clinical outcomes.
PubMed: 34204681
DOI: 10.3390/ma14123251 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Jan 2023Using dental implants to replacing missing teeth and satisfy both functional and aesthetic needs is one of the mainstream dental treatments. New approaches including... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Using dental implants to replacing missing teeth and satisfy both functional and aesthetic needs is one of the mainstream dental treatments. New approaches including computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) have been introduced to improve these elements. This systematic review aimed to compare CAD/CAM zirconia (Zr) implant abutments with other available abutments in terms of peri-implant health and aesthetics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, and Embase) were scoured for clinical studies evaluating Zr abutments reporting on the outcomes of interest including interproximal papilla stability (PS), papilla recession (REC), pink and white esthetic score (PES, WES), marginal bone level (MBL), color, and soft tissue contour. A hand searches in English language journals until September 2020 complemented the search. Two tools of Joanna Briggs Institute and Jaded Score calculation were used for the risk of bias assessment. No quantitative synthesis of the data was done due to high heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of six studies from the 412 ones obtained from the search were included. The study designs were either prospective cohort (n=3) or randomized clinical trial (n=3). Papilla fill, WES, PES, and the distance from the bone crest of adjacent teeth to the contact point (CPB) and inter-tooth-implant distance (ITD) was not significantly different between Zr CAD/CAM and Zr stock abutments. However, soft tissue stability and REC index were better in Zr CAD/CAM abutments.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher soft tissue stability can be achieved for Zr compared to titanium abutments with either stock or CAD/CAM abutments. Dental implants, Dental abutment, Computer-Assisted Design, Computer-Aided Manufacturing, Zirconia abutment, Soft tissue stability.
PubMed: 36755676
DOI: 10.4317/jced.59878 -
International Journal of Implant... Feb 2019To review the literature on the effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The present review addresses the following... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To review the literature on the effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The present review addresses the following focus question: Is there a difference for implant survival, mean marginal bone loss, and the incidence of bleeding on probing in periodontally compromised patients receiving a machined dental implant or rough surface dental implant?
METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted on PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library on studies published until May 2018 to collect information about the effect of machined, moderately rough, and rough dental implant surfaces in patients with a history of periodontal disease. The outcome variables implant survival, mean marginal bone level, and the incidence of peri-implantitis and bleeding on probing were evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain an accurate estimation of the overall, cumulative results.
RESULTS
Out of 2411 articles, six studies were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis of the implant survival and implant mean marginal bone loss revealed a risk ratio of 2.92 (CI 95% 0.45, 18.86) for implant failure and a total mean difference of - 0.09 (CI 95% - 0.31, 0.14) for implant mean marginal bone loss measured in a total group of 215 implants, both not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to lack of long-term data (> 5 years), the heterogeneity and variability in study designs and lack of reporting on confounding factors, definitive conclusions on differences in implant survival, and mean marginal bone loss between machined and moderate rough implants in periodontally compromised patients cannot be drawn. Future well-designed long-term randomized controlled trials are necessary to reveal that machined surfaces are superior to moderately rough and rough surfaces in patients with a history of periodontal disease.
PubMed: 30756245
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-019-0156-8