-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate whether a 1-stage implant placement procedure is as effective as a 2-stage procedure.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an Internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 21 January 2009.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All RCTs of osseointegrated dental implants comparing the same dental implants placed according to 1- versus 2-stage procedures with a minimum follow up of 6 months after loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, patient preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by dentists, and complications.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.
MAIN RESULTS
Five RCTs were identified and included reporting data on 239 patients in total. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, the meta-analyses showed no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, though trends, especially in fully edentulous patients, favoured 2-stage (submerged) implants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The number of patients included in the trials was too small to draw definitive conclusions. The 1-stage approach might be preferable in partially edentulous patients since it avoids one surgical intervention and shortens treatment times, while a 2-stage submerged approach could be indicated when an implant has not obtained an optimal primary stability or when barriers are used for guided tissue regeneration, or when it is expected that removable temporary prostheses could transmit excessive forces on the penetrating abutments especially in fully edentulous patients.
Topics: Dental Implantation; Dental Implants; Gingiva; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Mandible; Mouth Mucosa; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29791009
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006698.pub3 -
Journal of International Society of... 2021The aim of this study was to systematically review the applications of teriparatide (TP) for alveolar bone regeneration in oral cavity. (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this study was to systematically review the applications of teriparatide (TP) for alveolar bone regeneration in oral cavity.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search of the data was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The original research associated with the applications of TP for alveolar bone regeneration was evaluated. Cochrane's tool [for human randomized controlled trials (RCTs)] and SYRCLE's tool (for animal RCTs) were used to assess the risk of bias. About two human and four animal studies had low risk of bias.
RESULTS
The results from the 11 studies that were included in the review showed that TP enhanced alveolar bone formation in osteonecrosis of jaws, chronic periodontitis (CP), osseointegration of dental implants as well as orthodontic tooth movement.
CONCLUSION
The TP may be applied for alveolar bone regeneration in osteonecrosis of jaws and CP. However, further human clinical trials are required to verify its applications and adverse effects in various oral bone conditions.
PubMed: 35036372
DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_169_21 -
Journal of Oral Biology and... 2022This systematic review was executed to determine the influence of proton pump inhibitors on biomechanical efficiency of dental implants. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review was executed to determine the influence of proton pump inhibitors on biomechanical efficiency of dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The comprehensive online literature search was conducted on digital database of Pubmed, Cochrane database and EBSCO host, Web of Science and Scopus from 2010 to 2021(Dec).The studies included in our research comprised of randomized controlled trials and animal studies. Literature review, Letter to the editor, short communication and studies not related to the dental implants were excluded. A total of 6 studies were finalized and included in the systemic review.
RESULT
The proton pump inhibitors have a negative influence on the bone metabolism and adversely affect the Osseointegration of the dental implants. Further they reduce the biomechanical efficiency of dental implant which ultimately results in their failure.
CONCLUSION
Proton pump inhibitors are a risk factor for dental implant survival. This conclusion has been drawn from the limited research available. Hence well designed prospective randomized controlled trials should be carried out on a large population including the users and non-users, to more thoroughly elucidate the effect of proton pump inhibitor on osseointegration process of dental implants.
PubMed: 36052118
DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2022.08.016 -
Scientific Reports May 2021Much research effort is being invested into the development of porous biomaterials that enhance implant osseointegration. Large micromotions at the bone-implant...
Much research effort is being invested into the development of porous biomaterials that enhance implant osseointegration. Large micromotions at the bone-implant interface impair this osseointegration process, resulting in fibrous capsule formation and implant loosening. This systematic review compiled all the in vivo evidence available to establish if there is a universal limit of tolerable micromotion for implant osseointegration. The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (ID: CRD42020196686). Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for studies containing terms relating to micromotion and osseointegration. The mean value of micromotion for implants that osseointegrated was 32% of the mean value for those that did not (112 ± 176 µm versus 349 ± 231 µm, p < 0.001). However, there was a large overlap in the data ranges with no universal limit apparent. Rather, many factors were found to combine to affect the overall outcome including loading time, the type of implant and the material being used. The tables provided in this review summarise these factors and will aid investigators in identifying the most relevant micromotion values for their biomaterial and implant development research.
Topics: Animals; Biomechanical Phenomena; Bone-Anchored Prosthesis; Bone-Implant Interface; Humans; Osseointegration; Porosity; Surface Properties
PubMed: 34031476
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-90142-5 -
Heliyon Jun 2023The objective of the systematic review is to find an answer to a question: "Do surface treatments on titanium implants produced by additive manufacturing improve...
The objective of the systematic review is to find an answer to a question: "Do surface treatments on titanium implants produced by additive manufacturing improve osseointegration, compared to untreated surfaces?". This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA 2020) and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022321351). Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Embase, and Google Scholar databases on March 22nd, 2022. Articles were chosen in 2 steps by 2 blinded reviewers based on previously selected inclusion criteria: articles in animals that addressed the influence of surface treatments on osseointegration in implants produced by additive manufacturing. Articles were excluded that (1) did not use titanium surface, 2) that did not evaluate surface treatments, 3) that did not described osseointegration, 4) Studies with only in vitro analyses, clinical studies, systematic reviews, book chapters, short communications, conference abstracts, case reports and personal opinions.). 1003 articles were found and, after applying the eligibility criteria, 17 were used for the construction of this review. All included studies found positive osseointegration results from performing surface treatments on titanium. The risk of bias was analyzed using the SYRCLE assessment tool. Surface treatments are proposed to promote changes in the microstructure and composition of the implant surface to favor the adhesion of bone cells responsible for osseointegration. It is observed that despite the benefits generated by the additive manufacturing process in the microstructure of the implant surface, surface treatments are still indispensable, as they can promote more suitable characteristics for bone-implant integration. It can be concluded that the surface treatments evaluated in this systematic review, performed on implants produced by additive manufacturing, optimize osseointegration, as it allows the creation of a micro-nano-textured structure that makes the surface more hydrophilic and allows better contact bone-implant.
PubMed: 37484223
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17105 -
Infectious Disease Reports Mar 2024Despite the expanding use of orthopedic devices and the application of strict pre- and postoperative protocols, the elimination of postoperative implant-related... (Review)
Review
Current Progress and Future Perspectives in Contact and Releasing-Type Antimicrobial Coatings of Orthopaedic Implants: A Systematic Review Analysis Emanated from In Vitro and In Vivo Models.
Despite the expanding use of orthopedic devices and the application of strict pre- and postoperative protocols, the elimination of postoperative implant-related infections remains a challenge. To identify and assess the in vitro and in vivo properties of antimicrobial-, silver- and iodine-based implants, as well as to present novel approaches to surface modifications of orthopedic implants. A systematic computer-based review on the development of these implants, on PubMed and Web of Science databases, was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Overall, 31 in vitro and 40 in vivo entries were evaluated. Regarding the in vitro studies, antimicrobial-based coatings were assessed in 12 entries, silver-based coatings in 10, iodine-based in 1, and novel-applied coating technologies in 8 entries. Regarding the in vivo studies, antimicrobial coatings were evaluated in 23 entries, silver-coated implants in 12, and iodine-coated in 1 entry, respectively. The application of novel coatings was studied in the rest of the cases (4). Antimicrobial efficacy was examined using different bacterial strains, and osseointegration ability and biocompatibility were examined in eukaryotic cells and different animal models, including rats, rabbits, and sheep. Assessment of both in vivo and in vitro studies revealed a wide antimicrobial spectrum of the coated implants, related to reduced bacterial growth, inhibition of biofilm formation, and unaffected or enhanced osseointegration, emphasizing the importance of the application of surface modification techniques as an alternative for the treatment of orthopedic implant infections in the clinical settings.
PubMed: 38667751
DOI: 10.3390/idr16020025 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Mar 2021The main objective of this systematic review was to compare primary and secondary implant stability between placement with piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The main objective of this systematic review was to compare primary and secondary implant stability between placement with piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, comparing marginal bone losses as a secondary objective.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted using PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and Cochrane Library (Wiley) databases, besides a manual search.
RESULTS
A total of 153 articles were retrieved, 39 from Pubmed, 44 from Scopus, and 70 from the Cochrane Library. After removing duplicates, 112 articles (1 from the manual search) were screened, and 9 were finally selected for qualitative and statistical analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
Piezoelectric surgery is a predictable alternative to conventional drilling for dental implant placement. Medium/long-term survival rates and marginal bone losses are similar between piezoelectric osteotomy and conventional drilling, and there is no difference in ISQ values for primary stability. However, implants placed with ultrasound showed a lower decrease in implant stability quotient (ISQ) during the osseointegration period and a higher ISQ value for secondary stability. This study contributes further information on peri-implant bone tissue at 3 and 6 months after implant placement with piezoelectric osteotomy or conventional drilling and provides an updated meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Humans; Osseointegration; Osteotomy
PubMed: 33247573
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.24146 -
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Research 2017The purpose of the study is to systematically review the osseointegration process improvement by bone morphogenetic protein coating on titanium implant surface. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of the study is to systematically review the osseointegration process improvement by bone morphogenetic protein coating on titanium implant surface.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic literature search was conducted through the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases. The search was restricted for articles published during the last 10 years from October 2006 to September 2016 and articles were limited to English language.
RESULTS
A total of 41 articles were reviewed, and 8 of the most relevant articles that are suitable to the criteria were selected. Articles were analysed regarding concentration of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP), delivery systems, adverse reactions and the influence of the BMP on the bone and peri-implant surface . Finally, the present data included 340 implants and 236 models.
CONCLUSIONS
It's clearly shown from most of the examined studies that bone morphogenetic protein increases bone regeneration. Further studies should be done in order to induce and sustain bone formation activity. Osteogenic agent should be gradually liberated and not rapidly released with priority to three-dimension reservoir (incorporated) titanium implant surface in order to avoid following severe side effects: inflammation, bleeding, haematoma, oedema, erythema, and graft failure.
PubMed: 28791077
DOI: 10.5037/jomr.2017.8201 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2020This systematic review has been undertaken to highlight the unforgettable contributions of Prof. Brånemark Per-Ingvar (PI). It could be understood that reviewing his... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This systematic review has been undertaken to highlight the unforgettable contributions of Prof. Brånemark Per-Ingvar (PI). It could be understood that reviewing his work would give an idea of growth of this treatment modality. Materials and Methods: An electronic search on the PubMed/Medline, Ebscohost, and Cochrane database was done using search term "Brånemark PI" to identify his publications. Articles published in English and only related to implants and osseointegration were included. Screening of the titles and abstracts were done according to inclusion criteria and suitable studies were included in the review.
RESULTS
The initial literature search resulted in 187 articles, out of which 92 articles were excluded due to not meeting the inclusion criteria and 16 articles excluded due to non-availability of even abstract also. A total of 79 articles were finally included in this review.
CONCLUSION
Brånemark PI had a great vision of future; who considered edentulism as equal to amputation and came up with the concept of osseointegrated implants to overcome them. The innovations of Brånemark had assured the world that it is very much possible to provide implant-supported prosthesis in any situations for the rehabilitation of the individuals.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Osseointegration
PubMed: 33753667
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_587_18 -
Nutrients Jan 2024This systematic review evaluates the impact of Vitamin D levels on dental implant osseointegration, hypothesizing that optimal Vitamin D enhances success rates, and aims... (Review)
Review
This systematic review evaluates the impact of Vitamin D levels on dental implant osseointegration, hypothesizing that optimal Vitamin D enhances success rates, and aims to synthesize data on its relationship with clinical outcomes in implantology. A comprehensive search across PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases included seven peer-reviewed articles meeting the criteria for the review. These studies, conducted between 2008 and 2021, included human subjects and explicitly correlated serum Vitamin D levels with dental implant outcomes, following PRISMA guidelines. The selected studies involved 1462 participants and examined 4450 dental implants. Key findings included a varied implant loss rate ranging from 3.9% to 11.4% across the studies. One study reported a 9.8% implant loss rate, yet found no significant association between Vitamin D receptor polymorphism and implant success. Another study indicated successful implantation following Vitamin D3 supplementation, even in severe deficiency cases. The highest implant loss rate (11.1%) was observed in severely Vitamin D-deficient patients, particularly when compounded by risk factors such as smoking and periodontal disease. Additionally, one study noted significantly improved bone density following post-surgical Vitamin D supplementation for up to 12 weeks. The review supports a link between sufficient Vitamin D levels and successful dental implant osseointegration, suggesting Vitamin D deficiency as a potential risk factor for increased failure and advocating for Vitamin D evaluations in pre-surgical planning to potentially enhance implantology outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Vitamin D; Dental Implants; Osseointegration; Vitamins; Cholecalciferol
PubMed: 38257102
DOI: 10.3390/nu16020209