Long-Term Implant Survival in the Grafted Maxillary Sinus: A Systematic Review

<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

The biological and Mechanical Behavior of the Standard Implant under Removable Partial Dentures: Systematic Review

Integrative Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.15342/ijms.2021.436 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

Author(s):

Ghita Kadri ◽

Loubna Bahije ◽

Saloua Berrada

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Stress Distribution ◽

Mechanical Behavior ◽

High Rate ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Removable Partial Denture ◽

Support Surfaces ◽

Prosthetic Complications

Background: The implant-supported removable partial denture appears to be an interesting alternative for cases where the implant-supported fixed prosthesis is contraindicated whether it is for medical, local, or financial reasons. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the biological and mechanical behavior of the implant under a removable partial denture.Methods: A literature search was conducted on the following databases: Pubmed [Medline], Science Direct, and Cochrane Library. Research was limited to publications in English and French during the period from 01/1/2007 to 27/03/2020.Results: Of the 334 citations initially identified, 22 articles met our inclusion criteria, assessing the implant survival rate, patient satisfaction, and the occurrence of implant and prosthetic complications. As well as the evaluation of the stress distribution on the three support surfaces of this prosthesis. Finally, the evaluation of implant localization. The results showed a high rate of implant survival, the occurrence of some prosthetic complications. Stable and acceptable bone resorption over the long term. Better stress distribution at the implant and the bone.Conclusion: The biological and mechanical behavior of the implant under this type of prosthesis appears to be viable in the short, medium, and long term. Although this association between implantology and partial prosthesis seems promising, additional studies are needed to spread this practice still reserved for some specific cases.

Download Full-text

A systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term studies (≥5-years) assessing maxillary sinus floor augmentation

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.164 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 48 ◽

pp. 54

Author(s):

Thomas Starch-Jensen ◽

Hanna Aludden ◽

Mats Hallman ◽

Christer Dahlin ◽

Ann-Eva Christensen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Maxillary Sinus ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽

Maxillary Sinus Floor ◽

Sinus Floor ◽

Maxillary Sinus Floor Augmentation ◽

Long Term Studies

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

Long-Term Clinical Behavior and Complications of Intentionally Tilted Dental Implants Compared with Straight Implants Supporting Fixed Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Biology ◽

10.3390/biology10060509 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 10 (6) ◽

pp. 509

Author(s):

Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann ◽

Ignacio García-Gil ◽

Patricia Pedregal ◽

Jesús Peláez ◽

Juan Carlos Prados-Frutos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Success Rates ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Clinical Behavior ◽

Manual Search

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical behavior of straight implants in comparison with intentionally tilted dental implants (ITDI) supporting fixed restorations in partial or total edentulous arches, analyzing implant survival and success rates, complications, and marginal bone loss (MBL) after >5 years of function. An electronic search was conducted in five electronic databases (MEDLINE/Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) supplemented by a manual search. The electronic and manual search identified 1853 articles, of which 8 articles were selected for analysis. Out of a total of 3987 dental implants, 2036 were axial dental implants and 1951 tilted. Similar results were found in implant survival or overall implant success rates. Moreover, no statistically significant differences were found in MBL (p = 0.369; MD 0.116 mm (−0.137; 0.369) 95% CI) The prosthodontic/biological complications reported in the articles were very diverse and irregularly distributed. This systematic review suggests that there is no difference between tilted compared with straight dental implants in the medium-long term (>5 years). However, further research is needed to generate long-term data and confirm the present review’s findings.

Download Full-text