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

Abstract Objective Impaired health conditions and related lack of adequate host healing are among the most important conditions that account for dental implant failure. Today clinicians face an increasing number of immunocompromised patients requesting implant-based rehabilitation. To provide clinical evidence for prospective decision-making, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyse the influence of immunodeficiency on dental implant survival. Methods The study was conducted according to the PRISMA Statement and the principles of the Cochrane Collaboration. MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched. Results were calculated by the pooled incidence of implant loss. Reported odds ratios (OR) from fully adjusted models were preferred. Distinct risk estimates were synthesised with 95% confidence intervals. Results A total of 62 publications including 1751 endosseous implants placed in immunocompromised patients were included. For the follow-up of 24 months and longer, the mean survival rate of implants in patients with HIV was 93.1%, chemotherapy was 98.8%, autoimmune disease was 88.75%, after organ transplantation was 100%. Crohn’s disease showed a significant effect on early implant failure and resulted in increased, however not significant, implant loss. Conclusion No significant effect of immunocompromised conditions on implant survival was detectable. Implant-based therapy in immunocompromised patients should not aggravate the general morbidity and must not interfere in life-saving therapies. A careful risk stratification prior implant therapy is fundamental. To further decipher the role of immunosuppression on dental implantology, more data from controlled and randomised studies are needed.

Download Full-text

Long-term (10-year) dental implant survival: A systematic review and sensitivity meta-analysis

Journal of Dentistry ◽

10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.008 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 84 ◽

pp. 9-21 ◽

Cited By ~ 30

Author(s):

Mark-Steven Howe ◽

William Keys ◽

Derek Richards

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Dental Implant ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Implant Survival

Download Full-text

Effect of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors on Dental Implant Survival Rate in Patients with Neurological Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1292 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. 163-169

Author(s):

Bappaditya Bhattacharjee ◽

Rathindra Nath Bera ◽

Atul Bhatnagar ◽

Nachammai Nagarajan

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Dental Implant ◽

Neurological Disorders ◽

Serotonin Reuptake ◽

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors ◽

Selective Serotonin ◽

Implant Survival

Download Full-text

Effect of advanced age and/or systemic medical conditions on dental implant survival: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Clinical Oral Implants Research ◽

10.1111/clr.13288 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 29 (S16) ◽

pp. 311-330 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Martin Schimmel ◽

Murali Srinivasan ◽

Gerald McKenna ◽

Frauke Müller

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Dental Implant ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Advanced Age ◽

Medical Conditions ◽

Implant Survival

Download Full-text

Mini-Implant-Retained Overdentures for the Rehabilitation of Completely Edentulous Maxillae: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18084377 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (8) ◽

pp. 4377

Author(s):

Serena Vi ◽

Damon Pham ◽

Yu Yian Marina Du ◽

Himanshu Arora ◽

Santosh Kumar Tadakamadla

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Empirical Studies ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Full Text Review

Purpose: Mini-dental implants (MDIs) have been used to support and retain overdentures, providing patients with a less invasive placement procedure. Although lucrative, the use of MDIs to retain a maxillary overdenture is still not an established treatment modality. This systematic review aims to answer the question: Do mini-implant-retained maxillary overdentures provide a satisfactory treatment outcome for complete edentulism? Methods: A systematic search for relevant articles was conducted to include articles published until April 2021 in the following electronic databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science. All empirical studies evaluating the biological, survival, or patient-reported outcomes after placing mini-implant-retained overdentures in maxilla were considered for inclusion. The risk of bias was assessed by utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. Study screening and data extraction were conducted by three reviewers independently. Results: The electronic search retrieved 1276 titles after omitting duplicates. Twenty articles were considered for full-text review, of which six studies were included in this systematic review. The included studies evaluated a total of 173 participants with a mean age of 66.3 years. The overall mini-implant survival rate was 77.1% (95% CI: 64.7–89.5%) with a mean follow-up time of 1.79 years (range: 6 months to 3 years). Implant survival differed significantly when comparing complete and partial palatal coverage overdentures. Those with complete palatal coverage exhibited less bone loss overall compared to partial coverage overdentures. Participants of all studies reported an increase in the quality of life and in satisfaction after rehabilitation treatment with MDIs. Conclusions: The survival rate of mini-implants retaining an overdenture in the maxilla was observed to be lower than the values reported for traditional implants in the literature. Improvements were observed in all aspects in terms of patient satisfaction, quality of life, oromyofunction, and articulation after the treatment.

Download Full-text

Long-term Short Implants Performance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Essential Assessment Parameters

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/0103-6440201300265 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 26 (4) ◽

pp. 325-336 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves ◽

Sergio Bortolini ◽

Matteo Martinolli ◽

Bruna Fernandes Moreira Alfenas ◽

Daiane Cristina Peruzzo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Implant Failure ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Implant Survival Rate ◽

Short Implants

<p>Lack of standard criteria in the outcome assessment makes it difficult to draw conclusions on the clinical performance of short implants and, under these circumstances, determine the reasons for implant failure. This study evaluated, through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis, the essential parameters required to assess the long-term clinical performance of short and extra-short implants. Electronic databases (Pubmed-MEDLINE, Cochrane Library Database, Embase, and Lilacs) were searched by two independent reviewers, without language limitation, to identify eligible papers. References from the selected articles were also reviewed. The review included clinical trials involving short dental implants placed in humans, published between January 2000 and March 2014, which described the parameters applied for outcome's measurements and provided data on survival rates. Thirteen methodologically acceptable studies were selected and 24 parameters were identified. The most frequent parameters assessed were the marginal bone loss and the cumulative implant survival rate, followed by implant failure rate and biological complications such as bleeding on probing and probing pocket depths. Only cumulative implant survival rate data allows meta-analysis revealing a positive effect size (from 0.052 (fixed) to 0.042 (random)), which means that short implant appears to be a successful treatment option. Mechanical complications and crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio measurement were also commonly described, however, considering the available evidence; no strong conclusions could be drawn since different methods were used to assess each parameter. By means of this literature review, a standard evaluation scheme is proposed, being helpful to regiment further investigations and comparisons on future studies.</p>

Download Full-text

Association between surgeon grade and implant survival following hip and knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047882 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (11) ◽

pp. e047882

Author(s):

Timothy J Fowler ◽

Alex L Aquilina ◽

Ashley W Blom ◽

Adrian Sayers ◽

Michael R Whitehouse

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Knee Replacement ◽

Revision Rate ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Published Data ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Knee Replacements ◽

Orthopaedic Training ◽

Training Programmes

ObjectiveTo investigate the association between surgeon grade (trainee vs consultant) and implant survival following primary hip and knee replacement.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesMEDLINE and Embase from inception to 6 October 2021.SettingUnits performing primary hip and/or knee replacements since 1990.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing either a primary hip or knee replacement, predominantly for osteoarthritis.InterventionWhether the surgeon recorded as performing the procedure was a trainee or not.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was net implant survival reported as a Kaplan-Meier survival estimate. The secondary outcome was crude revision rate. Both outcomes were reported according to surgeon grade.ResultsNine cohort studies capturing 4066 total hip replacements (THRs), 936 total knee replacements (TKRs) and 1357 unicompartmental knee replacements (UKRs) were included (5 THR studies, 2 TKR studies and 2 UKR studies). The pooled net implant survival estimates for THRs at 5 years were 97.9% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.2%) for trainees and 98.1% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.2%) for consultants. The relative risk of revision of THRs at 5 and 10 years was 0.88 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.70) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.26), respectively. For TKRs, the net implant survival estimates at 10 years were 96.2% (95% CI 94.0% to 98.4%) for trainees and 95.1% (95% CI 93.0% to 97.2%) for consultants. We report a narrative summary of UKR outcomes.ConclusionsThere is no strong evidence in the existing literature that trainee surgeons have worse outcomes compared with consultants, in terms of the net survival or crude revision rate of hip and knee replacements at 5–10 years follow-up. These findings are limited by the quality of the existing published data and are applicable to countries with established orthopaedic training programmes.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019150494.

Download Full-text