scholarly journals A systematic review on marginal bone loss around short dental implants (<10 mm) for implant-supported fixed prostheses

2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 1119-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Monje ◽  
Fernando Suarez ◽  
Pablo Galindo-Moreno ◽  
Agustín García-Nogales ◽  
Jia-Hui Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

Marginal bone loss around dental implants with and without microthreads in the neck: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenzhi Niu ◽  
Penglai Wang ◽  
Shaoyue Zhu ◽  
Zongxiang Liu ◽  
Ping Ji
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roodabeh Koodaryan ◽  
Ali Hafezeqoran
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Present Systematic Review

Background. It is important to understand the influence of different collar designs on peri-implant marginal bone loss, especially in the critical area.Objectives. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare dental implants with different collar surfaces, evaluating marginal bone loss and survival rates of implants.Methods. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective studies, which evaluated dental implants with different collar surface in the same study.Results. Twelve articles were included, with a total of 492 machined, 319 rough-surfaced, and 352 rough-surfaced microthreaded neck implants. There was less marginal bone loss at implants with rough-surfaced and rough-surfaced microthreaded neck than at machined-neck implants (difference in means: 0.321, 95% CI: 0.149 to 0.493;p<0.01).Conclusion. Rough and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants are considered a predictable treatment for preserving early marginal bone loss.

scholarly journals Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (18) ◽  
pp. 6920
Author(s):  
Saverio Cosola ◽  
Simone Marconcini ◽  
Michela Boccuzzi ◽  
Giovanni Battista Menchini Fabris ◽  
Ugo Covani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Tissue Level ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
English Articles

Background: to assess the radiological marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissue-level dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors including only English articles. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis counting a total of 1161 patients (mean age 54.4 years) and 2933 implants, 1427 inserted at Tissue-level (TL) and 1506 inserted at Bone-level (BL). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). Only one study reported statistically less marginal bone loss in TL-implants (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the most part of the studies, differences between implant types in marginal bone loss were not statistically significant after a variable period of follow-up ranged between 1 and 5 years.

scholarly journals Evaluation of marginal bone loss of dental implants with internal or external connections and its association with other variables: A systematic review

2016 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 501-506.e5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodrigo Antonio de Medeiros ◽  
Eduardo Piza Pellizzer ◽  
Aljomar José Vechiato Filho ◽  
Daniela Micheline dos Santos ◽  
Emily Vivianne Freitas da Silva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
External Connections

scholarly journals Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcela Paraizo ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
Ricardo Alves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

This systematic review investigates the failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in Solid-organ transplant (SOT) patients compared to healthy controls. Three databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42019124896). Case-control and cohort studies reporting data failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in SOT patients were included. The risk of bias of observational studies was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Four case-control studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, all of low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed consistently lower implant failure rate than control populations at patient and implant levels. SOT patients had a significant difference of -18% (p-value &lt;0.001) of MLB towards healthy patients. SOT status poses no serious threat to implant survival. Overall, this group of patients presented lower levels of dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss compared to otherwise healthy patients. Further intervention trials with wider sample size and longer follow-ups are necessary to confirm these summary results.

Current Evidence on Dental Implants Outcomes in Smokers and Nonsmokers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 390-399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara A. Alfadda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Prospective Studies ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
First Year ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled

This systematic review aims to answer the following PICO (Participants, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome) question: “Does smoking increase the rates of implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss in patients with dental implants?” An extensive electronic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases and a subsequent hand search were performed. Only randomized controlled trial, controlled clinical trials, and prospective studies published up to January 2017 were included. For dichotomous outcomes, the effect estimates for smoking are expressed as odds ratios and 95% CIs. For continuous outcomes, weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% CIs are presented. Three randomized controlled trials and 7 prospective studies were included. The odds ratio for implant failure among smokers was 2.92 (95% CI, 1.76–4.83) (P &lt; .001). First-year marginal bone loss in smokers ranged from 0.02 to 0.45 mm. In the nonsmokers, bone loss ranged from −0.08 to 0.42 mm. Nonsmokers lost significantly less bone during the first year (WMD = 0.11 mm, 95% CI. 0.03–0.19) and subsequent years (WMD = 0.11 mm, 95% CI, 0.03–0.19, P = .009). The available scientific evidence suggests that smoking is associated with significantly increased rates of implant failure and marginal bone loss.

scholarly journals Clinical Comparation of Extra-Short (4 mm) and Long (>8 mm) Dental Implants Placed in Mandibular Bone: A Systematic Review and Metanalysis

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 315
Author(s):  
Vittorio Moraschini ◽  
Carlos Fernando de Almeida Barros Mourão ◽  
Pietro Montemezzi ◽  
Ingrid Chaves Cavalcante Kischinhevsky ◽  
Daniel Costa Ferreira de Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Prosthetic Complications

This systematic review (SR) aimed to evaluate implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and biological/prosthetic complications of extra-short 4 mm dental implants. An electronic search without language or date restrictions was performed in five databases and in gray literature for articles published until August 2020. Prospective cohort studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical performance of extra-short 4 mm dental implants were included. Studies were independently assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. The protocol of this SR was registered in the PROSPERO database under number CRD42019139709. Four studies were included in the present SR. There was no significant difference in implant survival rate (p = 0.75) between extra-short 4 mm and long implants. After 12 months of function, the extra-short implants had a significantly (p = 0.003) lower marginal bone loss (MBL) rate when compared to long implants. Extra-short implants had a lower number of biological and prosthetic complications when compared to long implants. After 12 months of follow-up, extra-short 4 mm dental implants placed in the mandible exhibit satisfactory clinical outcomes concerning implant survival rate and MBL when compared to longer implants, with a low number of biological and prosthetic complications. A higher number of RCTs with longer follow-up is necessary for the future.

scholarly journals Dental Implant Failure Rate and Marginal Bone Loss in Transplanted Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-96
Author(s):  
Marcela Paraizo ◽  
João Botelho ◽  
Vanessa Machado ◽  
José João Mendes ◽  
Ricardo Alves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

This systematic review investigates the failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in patients undergoing solid-organ transplant (SOT) compared to healthy controls. Three databases (PubMed, Web of Sciences, and the Cochrane Library) were searched up to June 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42019124896). Case-control and cohort studies reporting data failure rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) of dental implants placed in SOT patients were included. The risk of bias of observational studies was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Four case-control studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria; all had low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed consistently lower implant failure rate than control populations at patient and implant levels. SOT patients had a significant difference of −18% (p-value < 0.001) MBL compared to healthy patients. SOT status poses no serious threat to implant survival. Overall, this group of patients presented lower levels of dental implant failure rate and marginal bone loss compared to otherwise healthy patients. Further intervention trials with larger sample size and longer follow-ups are necessary to confirm these summarized results.

scholarly journals Marginal bone loss around oral implants supporting fixed versus removable prostheses: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Babak E. Saravi ◽  
Maria Putz ◽  
Sebastian Patzelt ◽  
Amir Alkalak ◽  
Sara Uelkuemen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Oral Implants
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document