Dataset Information

Effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Osseointegration 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.

Methods

Two 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.

Results

Fourteen 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).

Conclusions

Platelet 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 registration This study was registered on PROSPERO, with the Registration Number being CRD42021270214.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-021-01929-x.

SUBMITTER: Qu C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8588658 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundImmediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on December 02, 2020. "Grey" literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger's test.ResultsOf 328 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with 400 implants. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI - 0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Seven included studies have reported 5.03% implant failure rate (10 of 199 implants) in ILP group and 1.00% failure rate (2 of 201 implants) in DLP group in total.ConclusionsFor unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124.