The Impact of Dental Implant Length on Failure Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abdel-Halim M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8307721 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the clinical efficacy of the early dental implant placement protocol with immediate and delayed dental implant placement protocols.MethodsAn electronic and manual search of literature was made to identify clinical studies comparing early implant placement with immediate or delayed placement. Data from the included studies were pooled and quantitative analyses were performed for the implant outcomes reported as the number of failed implants (primary outcome variable) and for changes in peri-implant marginal bone level, peri-implant probing depth, and peri-implant soft tissue level (secondary outcome variables).ResultsTwelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Significant difference in risk of implant failure was found neither between the early and immediate placement protocols (risk difference = -0.018; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.06, 0.025; P = 0.416) nor between early and delayed placement protocols (risk difference = -0.008; 95% CI = -0.044, 0.028; P = 0.670). Pooled data of changes in peri-implant marginal bone level demonstrated significantly less marginal bone loss for implants placed using the early placement protocol compared with those placed in fresh extraction sockets (P = 0.001; weighted mean difference = -0.14 mm; 95% CI = -0.22, -0.05). No significant differences were found between the protocols for the other variables.ConclusionsThe available evidence supports the clinical efficacy of the early implant placement protocol. Present findings indicate that the early implant placement protocol results in implant outcomes similar to immediate and delayed placement protocols and a superior stability of peri-implant hard tissue compared with immediate implant placement.
| S-EPMC6500770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.MethodsThe systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.ResultsLiterature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06-0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09-0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.
| S-EPMC6499471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMaxillofacial reconstruction with vascularized bone restores facial contour and provides structural support and a foundation for dental rehabilitation. Routine implant placement in such cases, however, remains uncommon. This study aims to determine dental implant survival in patients undergoing vascularized maxillary or mandibular reconstruction through a systematic review of the literature.MethodsFollowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the literature was queried for implant placement in reconstructed jaws using Medical Subject Headings terms on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane platforms. Weighted implant survivals were calculated for the entire cohort and subcohorts stratified by radiotherapy. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate effect of radiation on implant osseointegration.ResultsOf 3965 publications identified, 42 were reviewed, including 1084 patients with 3636 dental implants. Weighted implant survival was 92.2 percent at a median follow-up of 36 months. Survival was 97.0 percent in 269 implants placed immediately in 60 patients versus 89.9 percent in 1897 delayed implants placed in 597 patients, with follow-up of 14 and 40 months, respectively. Dental implants without radiotherapy exposure had better survival than those exposed to radiation (95.3 versus 84.6 percent; p < 0.01) at a median follow-up of 36 months. Meta-analyses showed that radiation significantly increased the risk of implant failure (risk ratio, 4.74; p < 0.01) and suggested that implants placed before radiotherapy trended toward better survival (88.9 percent versus 83.4 percent, p = 0.07; risk ratio, 0.52; p = 0.14).ConclusionsOverall implant survival was 92.2 percent; however, radiotherapy adversely impacted outcomes. Implants placed before radiotherapy may demonstrate superior survival than implants placed after.
| S-EPMC8435212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo 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 methodsMEDLINE, 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.ResultsAfter 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).ConclusionBSM 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.
| S-EPMC8453723 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBracket failure increases the treatment time of orthodontic therapy and burdens patients with unnecessary costs, increased chair time, and possible new appointments.ObjectiveTo compare the bond failures of different orthodontic materials based on the results of available clinical studies.Search methodsA systematic search of clinical trials was performed in the Cochrane, Embase, and Pubmed databases with no limitations. The list of investigated techniques contained conventional acid-etch primer (CM-AEP), self-etch primer (SEP), self-cure resin (SCR), and simple or resin-modified glass ionomer (RM-GIC) materials and procedures.Selection criteriaClinical studies reporting the failure rate of bonded brackets after using direct adhesive techniques on buccal sites of healthy teeth were included.Data collection and analysisBracket failure rates from eligible studies were extracted by two authors independently. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using the random-effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation.ResultsThirty-four publications, involving 1221 patients, were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the risk of bracket failures between SEP and CM-AEP. After 6, 12, and 18 months of bonding, the values of RR were 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.61], 1.37 (95% CI, 0.98-1.92), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72-1.20), respectively. At 18 months, bracket failure was 4.9 and 5.2% for SEP and CM-AEP, respectively. Heterogeneity was good or moderate (I2 < 42.2%). The results of RM-GIC at 12 months indicated a 57% lower risk of bracket failure using SCR as compared with RM-GIC (RR: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.61). At 18 months, bracket failures for SCR and RM-GIC were 15.8 and 36.6%, respectively (RR: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.52, I2 = 78.9%), demonstrating three to six times higher failure rate than in the case of etching primer applications.LimitationsA major limitation of the present work is that the included clinical trials, with no exceptions, showed variable levels of risk of bias. Another possible problem affecting the outcome is the difference between the clustering effects of the split mouth and the parallel group bracket allocation methods.Conclusions and implicationsThe results revealed no significant difference between SEP and CM-AEP up to 18 months after application. RM-GIC had much worse failure rates than acid-etching methods; additionally, the superiority of SCR over RM-GIC was evident, indicating strong clinical relevance.RegistrationProspero with CRD42020163362.
| S-EPMC10065138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are conflicting reports as to the association between smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis and the risk of dental implant failure. We undertook a meta-analysis to evaluate the association between smoking, radiotherapy, diabetes and osteoporosis and the risk of dental implant failure.MethodsA comprehensive research on MEDLINE and EMBASE, up to January 2013, was conducted to identify potential studies. References of relevant studies were also searched. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool estimates of relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsA total of 51 studies were identified in this meta-analysis, with more than 40,000 dental implants placed under risk-threatening conditions. The pooled RRs showed a direct association between smoking (n = 33; RR = 1.92; 95% CI, 1.67-2.21) and radiotherapy (n = 16; RR = 2.28; 95% CI, 1.49-3.51) and the risk of dental implant failure, whereas no inverse impact of diabetes (n = 5; RR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.62-1.32) on the risk of dental implant failure was found. The influence of osteoporosis on the risk of dental implant failure was direct but not significant (n = 4; RR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79-1.52). The subgroup analysis indicated no influence of study design, geographical location, length of follow-up, sample size, or mean age of recruited patients.ConclusionsSmoking and radiotherapy were associated with an increased risk of dental implant failure. The relationship between diabetes and osteoporosis and the risk of implant failure warrant further study.
| S-EPMC3733795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).MethodsLiterature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all-ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.ResultsForty-nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3-year survival rate of veneered-reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%-99.6%). The estimated 3-year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%-98.5%) for monolithic-reinforced glass-ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%-98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%-97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%-97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%-87.7%) for resin-matrix-ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates.ConclusionsWith the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant-supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short-term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.
| S-EPMC9293296 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ultraviolet (UV) and non-thermal plasma functionalization are surface treatment modalities that seem able to improve osseointegration. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effect of the two methods and possible differences. The systematic research of pre-clinical animal studies was conducted up to May 2020 in the databases PubMed/Medline, Scopus and the Cochrane Lybrary. A meta-analysis was performed by using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator in random-effects models. Through the digital search, 518 articles were identified; after duplicate removal and screening process 10 papers were included. Four studies evaluating UV treatment in rabbits were included in the meta-analysis. The qualitative evaluation of the included studies showed that both UV photofunctionalization and non-thermal plasma argon functionalization of titanium implant surfaces might be effective in vivo to improve the osseointegration. The meta-analysis on four studies evaluating UV treatment in rabbits showed that bone to implant contact values (expressed as standardized mean differences and raw mean differences) were significantly increased in the bio-activated groups when follow-up times were relatively homogeneous, although a high heterogeneity (I2 > 75%) was found in all models. The present systematic review and meta-analysis on pre-clinical studies demonstrated that chair-side treatment of implants with UV or non-thermal plasma appear to be effective for improving osseointegration. This systematic review supports further clinical trials on this topic.
| S-EPMC7565759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo 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?MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsOut 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.ConclusionsDue 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.
| S-EPMC6372709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aims of this meta-analysis were to: (1) validate the outcome of modern dual mobility (DM) designs in patients who had undergone primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures and (2) to identify factors that affect the outcome.MethodsWe searched for studies that assessed the outcome of modern DM-THA in primary and revision procedures that were conducted between January, 2000 to August, 2020 on PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews and Embase. The pooled incidence of the most common failure modes and patient reported outcomes were evaluated in patients who have received: (1) primary THA, (2) revision THA for all causes or (3) for recurrent dislocation. A meta-regression analysis was performed for each parameter to determine the association with the outcome. The study design of each study was assessed for potential bias and flaws by using the quality assessment tool for case series studies.ResultsA total of 119 studies (N= 30016 DM-THAs) were included for analysis. The mean follow-up duration was 47.3 months. The overall implant failure rate was 4.2% (primary: 2.3%, revision for all causes: 5.5%, recurrent dislocation: 6.0%). The most common failure modes were aseptic loosening (primary: 0.9%, revision for all causes: 2.2%, recurrent dislocation: 2.4%), septic loosening (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes: 2.3%, recurrent dislocation: 2.5%), extra-articular dislocation (primary:0.6%, revision for all causes:1.3%, recurrent dislocation:2.5%), intra-prosthetic dislocation (primary:0.8%, revision for all causes:1.0%, recurrent dislocation:1.6%) and periprosthetic fracture (primary:0.9%, revision for all causes:0.9%, recurrent dislocation:1.3%). The multi-regression analysis identified younger age (β=-0.04, 95% CI -0.07 - -0.02) and female patients (β=3.34, 95% CI 0.91-5.78) were correlated with higher implant failure rate. Age, gender, posterolateral approach and body mass index (BMI) were not risk factors for extra-articular or intra-prosthetic dislocation in this cohort. The overall Harris hip score and Merle d'Aubigné score were 84.87 and 16.36, respectively. Level of evidence of this meta-analysis was IV.ConclusionModern dual-mobility designs provide satisfactory mid-term implant survival and clinical performance. Younger age and female patients might impact the outcome after DM-THA. Future research directions should focus on, (1) long-term outcome of modern dual-mobility design, including specific concerns such as intra-prosthetic dislocation and elevated metal ion, and (2) cost-effectiveness analysis of dual-mobility implant as an alternative to conventional THA for patients who are at high risk of dislocation.
| S-EPMC8204435 | biostudies-literature