PR645: High insertion torque, crestal bone loss and implant failure up to 12-month follow-up: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Systemic antibiotics are routinely prescribed in implant procedures, but the lack of consensus causes large differences between clinicians regarding antibiotic prophylaxis regimens. The objectives of this systematic review are to assess the need to prescribe antibiotics to prevent early implant failure and find the most appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis regimen. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scielo and Cochrane Central Trials Database for randomized clinical trials of at least 3 months of follow-up. Eleven studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Antibiotics were found to statistically significantly reduce early implant failures (RR = 0.30, 95% CI: 0.19–0.47, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity I2 = 0%, p = 0.54). No differences were seen between preoperative or both pre- and postoperative antibiotic regimens (RR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.21–1.55, p = 0.27; heterogeneity I2 = 0%, p = 0.37). A single preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis dose was found to be enough to significantly reduce early implant failures compared to no antibiotic (RR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21–0.53, p < 0.00001; heterogeneity I2 = 0%, p = 0.61). In conclusion, in healthy patients a single antibiotic prophylaxis dose is indicated to prevent early implant failure.

Download Full-text

Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Materials ◽

10.3390/ma12010154 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 12 (1) ◽

pp. 154 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Natalia Palacios-Garzón ◽

Eugenio Velasco-Ortega ◽

José López-López

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Randomized Control Trial ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

High Survival ◽

Random Effects Model ◽

High Survival Rate ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Crestal Bone Loss ◽

Randomized Control

Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss for implants placed at crestal and subcrestal level were included. Pooled estimates from comparable studies were analyzed using a continuous random-effects model meta-analysis with the objective of assessing differences in crestal bone loss between the two vertical positions. Results: 16 studies were included; 10 studies did not encounter statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to bone loss. Three articles found greater bone loss in subcrestal implants; while 3 found more bone loss in crestal implants. A meta-analysis for randomized control trial (RCT) studies reported an average and non-statistically different crestal bone loss of 0.028 mm. Conclusions: A high survival rate and a comparable bone loss was obtained both for crestal and subcrestal implants’ placement. Quantitative analysis considering a homogenous sample confirms that both vertical positions are equally valid in terms of perimplant bone loss. However, with respect to soft tissue; in presence of a thin tissue; a subcrestal placement of the implant should be preferred as it may reduce the probability for the implant to become exposed in the future and thus avoid the risk of suffering from peri-implant pathologies.

Download Full-text