Effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background Osseointegration is essential for the success and stability of implants. Platelet concentrates were reported to enhance osseointegration and improve implant stability. The purpose of this review is to systematically analyze the effects of platelet concentrates on implant stability and marginal bone loss. Methods Two researchers independently performed searches in the following databases (last searched on 21 July 2021): MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. In addition, a manual search was carried out on references of relevant reviews and initially included studies. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) on the application of platelet concentrates in the implant surgery procedure were included. The risk of bias of RCTs and CCTs were assessed with a revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2.0) and the risk of bias in non-randomized studies—of interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, respectively. Meta-analyses on implant stability and marginal bone loss were conducted. Researchers used mean difference or standardized mean difference as the effect size and calculated the 95% confidence interval. In addition, subgroup analysis was performed based on the following factors: type of platelet concentrates, method of application, and study design. Results Fourteen studies with 284 participants and 588 implants were included in the final analysis. 11 studies reported implant stability and 5 studies reported marginal bone level or marginal bone loss. 3 studies had high risk of bias. The meta-analysis results showed that platelet concentrates can significantly increase implant stability at 1 week (6 studies, 302 implants, MD 4.26, 95% CI 2.03–6.49, P < 0.001) and 4 weeks (8 studies, 373 implants, MD 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.88, P < 0.001) after insertion, significantly reduced marginal bone loss at 3 months after insertion (4 studies, 95 implants, mesial: MD − 0.33, 95% CI − 0.46 to − 0.20, P < 0.001; distal: MD − 0.38, 95% CI − 0.54 to − 0.22, P < 0.001). However, the improvement of implant stability at 12 weeks after insertion was limited (P = 0.10). Subgroup analysis showed that PRP did not significantly improve implant stability at 1 week and 4 weeks after insertion (P = 0.38, P = 0.17). Platelet concentrates only placed in the implant sites did not significantly improve implant stability at 1 week after insertion (P = 0.20). Conclusions Platelet concentrates can significantly improve implant stability and reduce marginal bone loss in the short term. Large-scale studies with long follow‐up periods are required to explore their long-term effects and compare effects of different types. Trial registration This study was registered on PROSPERO, with the Registration Number being CRD42021270214.

Download Full-text

Effects of Immediate and Delayed Loading Protocols on Marginal Bone Loss Around Implants in Unsplinted Mandibular Implant-Retained Overdentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-61066/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Wei Liu ◽

He Cai ◽

Junjiang Zhang ◽

Jian Wang ◽

Lei Sui

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Immediate Loading ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on April 28, 2020. “Grey” literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger’s test. Results: Of 305 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with a follow-up of no less than 12 months. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI -0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results between the two different loading groups restored with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Furthermore, the Egger’s test indicated no significant bias among seven included studies (P > .05). Conclusions: For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124

Download Full-text

Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Oral Health ◽

10.1186/s12903-021-01486-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Wei Liu ◽

He Cai ◽

Junjiang Zhang ◽

Jian Wang ◽

Lei Sui

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Failure Rate ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Immediate Loading ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on December 02, 2020. “Grey” literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, and Egger’s test. Results Of 328 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with 400 implants. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI − 0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Seven included studies have reported 5.03% implant failure rate (10 of 199 implants) in ILP group and 1.00% failure rate (2 of 201 implants) in DLP group in total. Conclusions For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124.

Download Full-text

Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-61066/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Wei Liu ◽

He Cai ◽

Junjiang Zhang ◽

Jian Wang ◽

Lei Sui

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Immediate Loading ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on April 28, 2020. “Grey” literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types ( i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger's test. Results: Of 305 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with a follow-up of no less than 12 months. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD0.04, CI -0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). Subgroup analysis revealed similar results between the two different loading groups restored with Locator attachments or ball anchors ( P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Furthermore, the Egger's test indicated no significant bias among seven included studies ( P > .05). Conclusions: For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.

Download Full-text

Effects of immediate and delayed loading protocols on marginal bone loss around implants in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

10.21203/rs.3.rs-61066/v3 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Wei Liu ◽

He Cai ◽

Junjiang Zhang ◽

Jian Wang ◽

Lei Sui

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Cohort Studies ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Immediate Loading ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Promising Alternative ◽

Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Immediate loading has recently been introduced into unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures for the management of edentulous patients due to their increasing demand on immediate aesthetics and function. However, there is still a scarcity of meta-analytical evidence on the efficacy of immediate loading compared to delayed loading in unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. The purpose of this study was to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants between immediate and delayed loading of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures.Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and cohort studies quantitatively comparing the MBL around implants between immediate loading protocol (ILP) and delayed loading protocol (DLP) of unsplinted mandibular overdentures were included. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on December 02, 2020. “Grey” literature was also searched. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the pooled MBL of two different loading protocols of unsplinted mandibular overdentures through weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The subgroup analysis was performed between different attachment types (i.e. Locator attachment vs. ball anchor). The risk of bias within and across studies were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and Egger’s test. Results: Of 328 records, five RCTs and two cohort studies were included and evaluated, which totally contained 191 participants with a follow-up of no less than 12 months. The MBL of ILP group showed no significant difference with that of DLP group (WMD 0.04, CI -0.13 to 0.21, P > .05). The subgroup analysis revealed similar results with Locator attachments or ball anchors (P > .05). Apart from one RCT (20%) with a high risk of bias, four RCTs (80%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Two prospective cohort studies were proved with acceptable quality. Seven included studies have reported ten implant failures in ILP groups and two implant failures in DLP groups in total.Conclusions: For unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures, the MBL around implants after ILP seems comparable to that of implants after DLP. Immediate loading may be a promising alternative to delayed loading for the management of unsplinted mandibular implant-retained overdentures. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020159124

Download Full-text

Effect of Earthworm on Wound Healing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Frontiers in Pharmacology ◽

10.3389/fphar.2021.691742 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Dong Wang ◽

Zhen Ruan ◽

Rongchao Zhang ◽

Xuejing Wang ◽

Ruihui Wang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Wound Healing ◽

Healing Rate ◽

Weighted Mean Difference ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healing Process ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Mean Difference ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Weighted Mean

Background: Earthworm, also called dilong (Chinese language), has been used as a traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years. Recently, some scientists believe that earthworm extracts (EE) can promote wound healing. However, its effectiveness remains controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of EE on wound healing based on the healing rate.Methods: We comprehensively reviewed literature that mentioned EE for wound healing in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, and WanFang database that have been published until January 2021. We computed weighted mean difference (WMD) for analysis with RevMan 5.3 software in animal and human models groups. Two researchers independently selected studies and evaluated the risk of bias with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020168400).Results: From 2,486 articles, we selected 16 studies for analysis. EE treatment was associated with improvements in wound healing performance based on wound healing rate (mouse model: weighted mean difference (WMD) = 3.55, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.34–4.77, p < 0.00001; rat model: WMD = 17.29, 95% CI: 5.75–28.82, p = 0.003; rabbit model: WMD = 19.29, 95% CI: 9.95–28.64, p < 0.0001). Clinical studies also confirmed that EE could reduce healing time in hospital (WMD = −8.94, 95% CI: −17.75 to −0.14, p = 0.05).Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of EE on wound healing process. As a corollary, EE can be a useful natural product for wound healing drug development.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=168400, identifier CRD42020168400.

Download Full-text

Comparison of intraocular pressure measured by ocular response analyzer and Goldmann applanation tonometer after corneal refractive surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Ophthalmology ◽

10.1186/s12886-019-1288-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hui Zhang ◽

Zhengtao Sun ◽

Lin Li ◽

Ran Sun ◽

Haixia Zhang

Keyword(s):

Intraocular Pressure ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Refractive Surgery ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Mean Difference ◽

Ocular Response Analyzer ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Goldmann Applanation Tonometer ◽

Applanation Tonometer ◽

Corneal Refractive Surgery

Abstract Background Accurate measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP) after corneal refractive surgery is of great significance to clinic, and comparisons among various IOP measuring instruments are not rare, but there is a lack of unified analysis. Although Goldmann Applanation Tonometer (GAT) is currently the internationally recognized gold standard for IOP measurement, its results are severely affected by central corneal thickness (CCT). Ocular Response Analyzer (ORA) takes certain biomechanical properties of cornea into account and is supposed to be less dependent of CCT. In this study, we conducted the meta-analysis to systematically assess the differences and similarities of IOP values measured by ORA and GAT in patients after corneal refractive surgery from the perspective of evidence-based medicine. Methods The authors searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of science, Cochrane library and Chinese electronic databases of CNKI and Wanfang) from Jan. 2005 to Jan. 2019, studies describing IOP comparisons measured by GAT and ORA after corneal refractive surgery were included. Quality assessment, subgroup analysis, meta-regression analysis and publication bias analysis were applied in succession. Results Among the 273 literatures initially retrieved, 8 literatures (13 groups of data) with a total of 724 eyes were included in the meta-analysis, and all of which were English literatures. In the pooled analysis, the weighted mean difference (WMD) between IOPcc and IOPGAT was 2.67 mmHg (95% CI: 2.20~3.14 mmHg, p < 0.0001), the WMD between IOPg and IOPGAT was − 0.27 mmHg (95% CI: − 0.70~0.16 mmHg, p = 0.2174). In the subgroup analysis of postoperative IOPcc and IOPGAT, the heterogeneity among the data on surgical procedure was zero, while the heterogeneity of other subgroups was still more than 50%. The comparison of the mean difference of pre- and post-operative IOP (∆IOP) was: mean-∆IOPg > mean-∆IOPGAT > mean-∆IOPcc. Conclusions IOPcc, which is less dependent on CCT, may be more close to the true IOP after corneal refractive surgery compared with IOPg and IOPGAT, and the recovery of IOPcc after corneal surface refractive surgery may be more stable than that after lamellar refractive surgery.

Download Full-text

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Determine the Effect of Oral Anticoagulants on Incidence of Dementia in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

10.22541/au.161555710.03366973/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Mingjie Lin ◽

Wenqiang Han ◽

Jingquan Zhong ◽

Lin Wu

Keyword(s):

Atrial Fibrillation ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Subgroup Analysis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Significant Risk ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Adjusted Risk ◽

Incidence Of Dementia

Aims: To assess the effect of oral anticoagulant (OAC) administration on incidence of dementia in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with Systematic review and meta-analysis in according with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols. Methods: We systematically searched the electronic databases including Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrails.gov for relevant articles. The primary outcome was the incidence of dementia. The adjusted risk ratio (RR), odds ratio, or hazard ratio were extracted and pooled by the random-effects models. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the setting observational window. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, while publication bias was assessed by the Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Results: Nine studies included in this review (2 prospective and 7 retrospective observational studies, including 613,920 patients). The results presented the significant association between OAC therapy and the reduced risk of dementia compared with no treatment (RR [95%CI] =0.72 [0.60, 0.86], I2=97.2%; P =0.000). In the subgroup analysis, the pooled RR became statistically non-significant (including four studies, RR [95%CI] =0.75 [0.51, 1.10], I2=98.8%; P =0.000). There is no significant risk of bias and publication bias. Conclusions: This study indicated the protective effect of OAC therapy for dementia in patients with AF. However, the results are limited because of high heterogeneity, inconsistent direction of effect in subgroup analysis. Further prospective well-designed study is needed with longer follow-up duration in younger patients.

Download Full-text

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

10.20944/preprints202008.0557.v1 ◽

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 <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.

Download Full-text

Use of trolamine to prevent and treat acute radiation dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem ◽

10.1590/1518-8345.2035.2929 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 26 (0) ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Amanda Gomes de Menêses ◽

Paula Elaine Diniz dos Reis ◽

Eliete Neves Silva Guerra ◽

Graziela De Luca Canto ◽

Elaine Barros Ferreira

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Cochrane Collaboration ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Radiation Dermatitis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Assessment Development ◽

Manual Search ◽

The Cochrane Collaboration

ABSTRACT Objective: to evaluate the effects of trolamine in the prevention or treatment of radiation dermatitis. Method: systematic review and meta-analysis. Detailed individual search strategies for Cinahl, Cochrane Library Central, LILACS, PubMed, and Web of Science were developed in January 2016. A manual search was also performed to find additional references. A grey literature search was executed by using Google Scholar. Two researchers independently read the titles and abstracts from every cross-reference. The risk of bias of the included studies was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The quality of evidence and grading of strength of recommendations was assessed using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: seven controlled clinical trials were identified. The controls used were calendula, placebo, institutional preference / usual care, Aquaphor®, RadiaCare™, and Lipiderm™. The studies were pooled using frequency of events and risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals, in subgroups according to radiation dermatitis graduation. Conclusion: based on the studies included in this review, trolamine cannot be considered as a standardized product to prevent or treat radiation dermatitis in patients with breast and head and neck cancer.

Download Full-text

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

Transplantology ◽

10.3390/transplantology1020008 ◽

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.

Download Full-text