Dataset Information

Dental Implant Survival in Vascularized Bone Flaps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Maxillofacial 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.

Methods

Following 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.

Results

Of 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).

Conclusions

Overall implant survival was 92.2 percent; however, radiotherapy adversely impacted outcomes. Implants placed before radiotherapy may demonstrate superior survival than implants placed after.

SUBMITTER: Panchal H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8435212 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Project description:Several authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5-5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5-5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

Project description:BackgroundOsseointegration is essential for the success and stability of implants. Platelet concentrates were reported to enhance osseointegration and improve implant stability. The purpose of this review is to systematically analyze the effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss.MethodsTwo researchers independently performed searches in the following databases (last searched on 21 July 2021): MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. In addition, a manual search was carried out on references of relevant reviews and initially included studies. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on the application of platelet concentrates in the implant surgery procedure were included. The risk of bias of RCTs and CCTs were assessed with a revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, respectively. Meta-analyses on implant stability and marginal bone loss were conducted. Researchers used mean difference or standardized mean difference as the effect size and calculated the 95% confidence interval. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed based on the following factors: type of platelet concentrates, method of application, and study design.ResultsFourteen studies with 284 participants and 588 implants were included in the final analysis. 11 studies reported implant stability and 5 studies reported marginal bone level or marginal bone loss. 3 studies had high risk of bias. The meta-analysis results showed that platelet concentrates can significantly increase implant stability at 1 week (6 studies, 302 implants, MD 4.26, 95% CI 2.03-6.49, P < 0.001) and 4 weeks (8 studies, 373 implants, MD 0.67, 95% CI 0.46-0.88, P < 0.001) after insertion, significantly reduced marginal bone loss at 3 months after insertion (4 studies, 95 implants, mesial: MD - 0.33, 95% CI - 0.46 to - 0.20, P < 0.001; distal: MD - 0.38, 95% CI - 0.54 to - 0.22, P < 0.001). However, the improvement of implant stability at 12 weeks after insertion was limited (P = 0.10). Subgroup analysis showed that PRP did not significantly improve implant stability at 1 week and 4 weeks after insertion (P = 0.38, P = 0.17). Platelet concentrates only placed in the implant sites did not significantly improve implant stability at 1 week after insertion (P = 0.20).ConclusionsPlatelet concentrates can significantly improve implant stability and reduce marginal bone loss in the short term. Large-scale studies with long follow-up periods are required to explore their long-term effects and compare effects of different types.Trial registrationThis study was registered on PROSPERO, with the Registration Number being CRD42021270214.