Survival and stability (PTVs) of six implant designs from placement to 36 months

WITHDRAWN: Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant designs and surface modifications have been developed for improving clinical outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2003, 2005 and 2007.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to compare the clinical effects of different root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types for replacing missing teeth for the following specific comparisons: implants with different surface preparations, but having similar shape and material; implants with different shapes, but having similar surface preparation and material; implants made of different materials, but having similar surface preparation and shape; different implant types differing in surface preparation, shape, material or a combination of these.Secondary: to compare turned and roughened dental implants for occurrence of early implant failure (before prosthetic loading) and occurrence of peri-implantitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 January 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 January 2014). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing osseointegrated dental implants of different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow-up in function of at least one year. Outcome measures were success of the implants, radiographic peri-implant marginal bone levels changes and incidence of peri-implantitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We expressed results using fixed-effect models (if up to three studies were present in a meta-analysis) or random-effects models (when there were more than three studies) using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We reported the following endpoints: one, three, five and 10 years after functional loading.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 81 different RCTs. We included 27 of these RCTs, reporting results from 1512 participants and 3230 implants in the review. We compared 38 different implant types with a follow-up ranging from one to 10 years. All implants were made of commercially pure titanium or its alloys, and had different shapes and surface preparations. We judged two trials to be at low risk of bias, 10 to be at unclear risk of bias and 15 to be at high risk of bias. On a 'per participant' rather than 'per implant' basis, we found no significant differences between various implant types for implant failures. The only observed statistically significant difference for the primary objective regarded more peri-implant bone loss at Nobel Speedy Groovy implants when compared with NobelActive implants (MD -0.59 mm; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.44, different implant shapes). The only observed statistically significant difference for the secondary objective was that implants with turned (smoother) surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk to be affected by peri-implantitis than implants with rough surfaces three years after loading (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96). There was a tendency for implants with turned surfaces to fail early more often than implants with roughened surfaces.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the included RCTs, we found no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant had superior long-term success. There was limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces were less prone to lose bone due to chronic infection (peri-implantitis) than implants with much rougher surfaces (titanium-plasma-sprayed). These findings were based on several RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods.

The influence of prosthetic material on implant and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Evaluating the impact of the prosthetic material on implant- and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures.

STUDY SELECTION

Electronic and hand searches were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to identify clinical studies including at least 10 patients restored with implant-supported dentures. The primary outcome was to evaluate the implant survival rate according to the applied restorative materials. The prosthetic survival rate was evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 2254 studies were finally selected. A statistically significant difference (p = 0.0337) was found between implant survival rates in the main restorative groups (metal-ceramic:97%(95%CI [0.96;0.98]), all-ceramic:99%(95%CI [0.98;1.00]), metal-resin:97%(95%CI [0.96;0.98])). Prosthetic survival rates were: (metal-ceramic:95%(95%CI [0.89;0.97]), all-ceramic:97%(95%CI [0.92;0.99]), metal-resin:97%(95%CI [0.95;0.98]), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.3796) between the groups. Chipping incidence rates were as follows: metal-ceramic:8%(95%CI[0.03;0.20]), all-ceramic:15%(95%CI [0.06;0.32]), and metal-resin:22%(95%CI [0.13;0.33]). Five types of exact restorative materials were identified (porcelain-fused-to-non-precious alloy, porcelain-fused-to-zirconia, precious-metal-acrylic-resin, non-precious-metal-acrylic resin, and PMMA). Again, implant survival rates were statistically significantly influenced by the applied restorative materials (p = 0.0126), whereas, no significant differences were reported regarding prosthetic survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic material selection seems to have no clinically relevant influence on implant- and prosthetic survival rate in implant-supported fixed complete dentures. Due to the high chipping rate, quantifying prosthetic survival alone does not seem to be a reliable tool for evaluating the outcome of the restorations and providing recommendations. These results, along with the obvious lack of evidence, suggest that clinicians must exercise caution whenever porcelain-fused-to-zirconia or metal-resin restorations are considered.

Retrospective clinical outcome of nanopolymorphic crystalline hydroxyapatite-coated and anodic oxidized titanium implants for 10 years

PURPOSE

Nanopolymorphic crystalline Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated implants were different in surface property from conventional HA-coated implants subjected to previous clinical studies. The purposes of the present study were to retrospectively evaluate 10-years clinical outcome of the HA-coated implants (HA implants) with a comparison to the same system implants with anodic oxidized titanium surface (Ti implants).

METHODS

Cumulative survival rate (CSR) of HA or Ti implants placed in 183 patients (55±12.4 years old) over two decades was calculated with life table analysis. Differences in CSR at each interval year, sex, age, frequency of number of implant placement according to implant location and diameter were compared between both types of implants.

RESULTS

Total 455 HA implants and 255 Ti implants were included. CSR at upper molar site was consistently higher in HA implants than Ti implants until 8 years after placement. The values after 10 years was 89.9% or 77.7% in HA or Ti implants, respectively. There were no significant differences in overall CSR at any interval year. HA implants were more distributed at upper molar site but less at lower molar site than Ti implants. Diameter of HA implants tended to be wider than Ti implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Under limitation of this retrospective study, the nanopolymorphic crystalline HA-coated implants were more survived at upper molar site than anodic oxidized implants until 8 years after placement. This clinical outcome might attribute to differences in topographical and physicochemical characteristics between both types of implants.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant designs and surface modifications have been developed for improving clinical outcome. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2002, and previously updated in 2003, 2005 and 2007.

OBJECTIVES

Primary: to compare the clinical effects of different root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types for replacing missing teeth for the following specific comparisons: implants with different surface preparations, but having similar shape and material; implants with different shapes, but having similar surface preparation and material; implants made of different materials, but having similar surface preparation and shape; different implant types differing in surface preparation, shape, material or a combination of these.Secondary: to compare turned and roughened dental implants for occurrence of early implant failure (before prosthetic loading) and occurrence of peri-implantitis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 17 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 12), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 17 January 2014) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 January 2014). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing osseointegrated dental implants of different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow-up in function of at least one year. Outcome measures were success of the implants, radiographic peri-implant marginal bone levels changes and incidence of peri-implantitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We expressed results using fixed-effect models (if up to three studies were present in a meta-analysis) or random-effects models (when there were more than three studies) using mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We reported the following endpoints: one, three, five and 10 years after functional loading.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 81 different RCTs. We included 27 of these RCTs, reporting results from 1512 participants and 3230 implants in the review. We compared 38 different implant types with a follow-up ranging from one to 10 years. All implants were made of commercially pure titanium or its alloys, and had different shapes and surface preparations. We judged two trials to be at low risk of bias, 10 to be at unclear risk of bias and 15 to be at high risk of bias. On a 'per participant' rather than 'per implant' basis, we found no significant differences between various implant types for implant failures. The only observed statistically significant difference for the primary objective regarded more peri-implant bone loss at Nobel Speedy Groovy implants when compared with NobelActive implants (MD -0.59 mm; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.44, different implant shapes). The only observed statistically significant difference for the secondary objective was that implants with turned (smoother) surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk to be affected by peri-implantitis than implants with rough surfaces three years after loading (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96). There was a tendency for implants with turned surfaces to fail early more often than implants with roughened surfaces.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the included RCTs, we found no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant had superior long-term success. There was limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces were less prone to lose bone due to chronic infection (peri-implantitis) than implants with much rougher surfaces (titanium-plasma-sprayed). These findings were based on several RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performance.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing osseointegrated implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow up of at least 1 year.

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. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty different RCTs were identified. Sixteen of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 771 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Eighteen different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 5 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. There were statistically significant differences for perimplant bone level changes on intraoral radiographs in three comparisons in two trials. In one trial there was more bone loss only at 1 year for IMZ implants compared to Brånemark (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10) and to ITI implants (mean difference 0.50 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99). In the other trial Southern implants displayed more bone loss at 5 years than Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However this difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. More implants with rough surfaces were affected by perimplantitis (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96) meaning that turned implant surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk of being affected by perimplantitis over a 3-year period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available results of RCTs, there is limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to lose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. On the other hand, there is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. These findings are based on a few RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow up of at least 5 years including a sufficient number of patients to detect a true difference. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Randomized clinical trials in implant therapy: relationships among methodological, statistical, clinical, paratextual features and number of citations

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationships among reported methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual variables of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in implant therapy, and their influence on subsequent research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The material consisted of the RCTs in implant therapy published through the end of the year 2000. Methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual features of the articles were assessed and recorded. The perceived clinical relevance was subjectively evaluated by an experienced clinician on anonymous abstracts. The impact on research was measured by the number of citations found in the Science Citation Index. A new statistical technique (Structural learning of Bayesian Networks) was used to assess the relationships among the considered variables.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics revealed that the reported methodology and statistics of RCTs in implant therapy were defective. Follow-up of the studies was generally short. The perceived clinical relevance appeared to be associated with the objectives of the studies and with the number of published images in the original articles. The impact on research was related to the nationality of the involved institutions and to the number of published images.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs in implant therapy (until 2000) show important methodological and statistical flaws and may not be appropriate for guiding clinicians in their practice. The methodological and statistical quality of the studies did not appear to affect their impact on practice and research. Bayesian Networks suggest new and unexpected relationships among the methodological, statistical, clinical and paratextual features of RCTs.

Implant surfaces

Available in many shapes, sizes, and lengths, dental implants are also crafted from different materials with different surface proper-ties. Among the most desired characteristics of an implant are those that ensure that the tissue-implant interface will be established quickly and then will be firmly maintained. Because many variables affect oral implants, it is sometimes difficult to reliably predict the likelihood of an implant's success. It is especially difficult to assess whether the various modifications in the latest implants deliver improved performance. This article focuses primarily on important surface characteristics and their potential effects on the performance of dental implants.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performances.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 28 June 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing osseointegrated implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow up of at least 1 year.

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 reviewers. Results were expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one different RCTs were identified. Twelve of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 512 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Twelve different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 5 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient ' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. There were statistically significant differences for peri-implant bone level changes on intraoral radiographs in three comparisons in two trials. In one trial there was more bone loss only at 1 year for IMZ implants compared to Branemark (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10) and to ITI implants (mean difference 0.50 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99). In the other trial Southern implants displayed more bone loss at 5 years than Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However this difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. More implants with rough surfaces were affected by perimplantitis (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96) meaning that turned implant surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk of being affected by perimplantitis over a 3-year period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available results of RCTs, there is limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to loose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. On the other hand, there is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. These findings are based on a few RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow up of at least 5 years including a sufficient number of patients to detect a true difference if any exists. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture

BACKGROUND

Approximately one-third of Americans older than 65 years of age are fully edentulous, requiring replacement of missing teeth. While the conventional denture may meet the needs of many patients, others require more retention, stability, function and esthetics, especially in the mandible. The implant-supported prosthesis is an alternative to the conventional removable denture.

METHODS

This article describes the strengths of the implant-supported mandibular overdenture. The authors also outline the risks of this approach. They performed a review of recent literature to summarize the reported success rate of implants used to support a mandibular overdenture.

RESULTS

The literature review indicates that implants placed in the anterior mandible (anterior to the foramen) have a success rate better than 95 percent. Patients have reported a high degree of satisfaction with the implant-supported overdenture.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature indicates that implant-supported overdentures in the mandible provide predictable results with improved stability, retention, function and patient satisfaction compared with conventional dentures. Implants placed in the anterior mandible have a success rate equal to or greater than 95 percent.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

When planning treatment for patients with edentulous mandibles, clinicians should consider the implant-supported prosthesis.