Influence of Diabetes on the Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

We aimed to conduct an analysis of the systematic reviews (SRs) in literature about the implant survival rate (ISR) and marginal bone loss (MBL) in diabetic and nondiabetic patients. This work was registered in The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018095314) and was developed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Cochrane Library Handbook. A search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and LILACS. The PICO (problem/patient/population, intervention/indicator, comparison, outcome) question was “Do the survival rates of dental implants and marginal bone loss differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patients?” A total of 130 articles were retrieved. After eliminating repetitions, 118 were reviewed. Finally, 6 SRs were included. All the reviews indicated that there is no effect of diabetes on the ISR; however, a negative effect of the disease can be observed in MBL. Analysis of the quality of the studies was performed using the assessment of SRs in dentistry (Glenny Scale) and Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). Glenny Scale showed a moderate to high quality of the included studies. In contrast, AMSTAR 2 pointed out a critically low level for 4 studies, with no study fulfilling the criteria for high quality. It may be concluded that there is no effect of diabetes on the ISR; however, a negative effect of the disease can be observed on MBL.

Download Full-text

Dental Implants with Different Neck Design: A Prospective Clinical Comparative Study with 2-Year Follow-Up

Materials ◽

10.3390/ma13051029 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 (5) ◽

pp. 1029 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Pietro Montemezzi ◽

Francesco Ferrini ◽

Giuseppe Pantaleo ◽

Enrico Gherlone ◽

Paolo Capparè

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Probing Depth ◽

Group A ◽

Group B ◽

Wide Neck

The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t1 = 12 vs. t2 = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars).

Download Full-text

Clinical outcomes of dental implants placed in the same region where previous implants failed due to peri-implantitis: a retrospective study

International Journal of Implant Dentistry ◽

10.1186/s40729-021-00392-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 7 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Eduardo Anitua ◽

Adriana Montalvillo ◽

Asier Eguia ◽

Mohammad Hamdan Alkhraisat

Keyword(s):

Retrospective Study ◽

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Clinical Outcomes ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Demographic Data ◽

High Survival ◽

Implant Survival ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Bone Level

Abstract Purpose There is paucity in the studies that assess dental implants replacing failed dental implants due to peri-implantitis. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of these implants in terms of implant survival and marginal bone loss. Methods Patients in this retrospective study were selected if having one or more implants removed due to peri-implantitis and the placement and loading of dental implants in the same region from April 2010 to December 2019. Information was collected about the patient's demographic data, implant dimensions, surgical and prosthetic variables. Changes in peri-implant bone level, cumulative implant survival rate and technical complications were assessed. Results Three hundred and eighty one dental implants in 146 patients that were placed in the same position or one-tooth position mesially/distally to the site of explantation were included. The patients' mean age was 63 ± 10 years. Ninety seven patients were females and 49 were males. After a mean follow-up of 34 ± 17 months, two implants failed. The cumulative survival rate was 99%. The marginal bone loss was −0.1 ± 0.6. Immediate or delay replacement of the failed implant did not affect implant survival or marginal bone stability. All the prostheses were screw-retained and presented the following complications: ceramic chipping (3 events), resin tooth fracture (1 event) and prosthetic screw loosening (1 event). Conclusions Dental implants replacing failed implants due to peri-implantitis would be an option in the management of peri-implantitis. They showed high survival rate and marginal bone stability.

Download Full-text

Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review

Materials ◽

10.3390/ma13235534 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 (23) ◽

pp. 5534

Author(s):

Felice Lorusso ◽

Sammy Noumbissi ◽

Inchingolo Francesco ◽

Biagio Rapone ◽

Ahmad G. A. Khater ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Clinical Research ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Clinical Studies ◽

Medical Center ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Oral Rehabilitation ◽

Bibliometric Review ◽

Zirconia Implants

Background: The clinical use of zirconia implants has been shown to increase steadily due to their biological, aesthetic, and physical properties; therefore, this bibliometric study aimed to review the clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implant rehabilitation. Methods: We searched Scopus and Web of Science databases using a comprehensive search strategy to 5 October 2020, and independently paired reviewers who screened studies, and collected data with inclusion criteria restricted to clinical research only (either prospective or retrospective). Data on article title, co-authors, number of citations received, journal details, publication year, country and institution involved, funding, study design, marginal bone loss, survival rate, failure, follow-up, and the author’s bibliometric data were collected and evaluated. Results: A total of 29 clinical studies were published between 2008 and 2020 as 41.4% were prospective cohort studies and 48.3% originated from Germany. Most of the included studies had been published in Clinical Oral Implant Research (n = 12), and the most productive institution was the Medical Center of University of Freiburg. The author with the largest number of clinical studies on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n = 10), followed by Spies B.C. (n = 8). Conclusions: This study revealed that zirconia implants have been more prominent in the last ten years, which is a valuable option for oral rehabilitation with marginal bone loss and survival rate comparable to titanium dental implants.

Download Full-text

Use of Narrow-Diameter Implants in Completely Edentulous Patients as a Prosthetic Option: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2021/5571793 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 2021 ◽

pp. 1-11

Author(s):

S. Storelli ◽

A. Caputo ◽

G. Palandrani ◽

M. Peditto ◽

M. Del Fabbro ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Survival Rate ◽

Bone Loss ◽

Random Effect ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

High Survival ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Hand Search ◽

Edentulous Patients ◽

Narrow Diameter Implants

Objective. The objective of the present review is to assess the implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biomechanical features of narrow-diameter implants (2.5-3.5 mm) supporting or retaining full-arch fixed or removable restorations. Materials and Methods. Three operators screened the literature (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) and performed a hand search on the main journals that focus on implantology until 24 March 2019. Only articles that considered full-arch restorations supported or retained by narrow-diameter implants (2.5-3.5 mm) were considered if they have a minimum of 10 patients and a mean follow-up of at least 6 months. The outcome variables were survival of implants and marginal bone loss. The review was performed according to the PRISMA statements. Risk of bias assessment was evaluated. Failure rates were analyzed using random effect Poisson regression models to obtain the summary estimate of 5-year survival rate and marginal bone loss. Results. A total of nine papers were finally selected, reporting a high survival rate of the implants. Eight studies focused only on the mandible while one study reported data from both mandible and maxilla. All studies reported on removable restorations; none focused on fixed rehabilitations. The estimated survival rate for 5 years of follow-up was calculated to be 92.25% for the implants. The estimated marginal bone loss after 5 years was calculated to be 1.40 mm. No study reported implant fractures. Conclusions. With the limitations of the present study, there is evidence that 2.5-3.5 mm narrow-diameter implants retaining a removable restoration can be a successful treatment in fully edentulous patients. No data on fixed restorations was available.

Download Full-text

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

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2016/4987526 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-10 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

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.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness and Safety of Acupuncture for Migraine: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Pain Research and Management ◽

10.1155/2020/3825617 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 2020 ◽

pp. 1-14 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Yu-Xi Li ◽

Xi-li Xiao ◽

Dong-Ling Zhong ◽

Liao-Jun Luo ◽

Han Yang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Western Medicine ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

High Quality ◽

Quality Of Evidence

Background. Migraine is a common neurological disease, which burdens individuals and society all over the world. Acupuncture, an important method in Traditional Chinese Medicine, is widely used in clinical practice as a treatment for migraine. Several systematic reviews (SRs) have investigated the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for migraine. Objective. To summarize and critically assess the quality of relevant SRs and present an objective and comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for migraine. Data Sources. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), China Science and Technology Journal (SCTJ), and WanFang database (WF) were searched from inception to December 2019 and grey literatures were manually searched. Selection Criteria. SRs which meet the criteria were independently selected by 2 reviewers according to a predetermined protocol. Data Extraction. Characteristics of included SRs were independently extracted by 2 reviewers following a predefined data extraction form. Review Appraisal. The methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of included SRs were assessed, respectively, by a Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool, and the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis-Acupuncture (PRISMA-A) statement. The quality of outcomes was evaluated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. A total of 15 SRs were included. All the SRs were published between 2011–2019. Based on AMSTAR 2, 14 out of 15 SRs were rated critically low quality and 1 was rated low quality. According to ROBIS tool, 9 SRs (60%) were low risk of bias. With the PRISMA-A checklist, we found 11 out of 15 SRs were found adequately reported over 70%. With the GRADE tool, we found high quality of evidence indicated that the effective rate of acupuncture was superior to western medicine in treatment of migraine. Besides, acupuncture reduced more headache days and the times of using painkiller and was more effective in reducing the frequency and degree of headache than western medicine and sham acupuncture. Limitations. There might be some missing information. The accuracy of the conclusions may be decreased reduced since we were unable to synthesis all the evidence. Conclusions. Based on high quality of evidence, we concluded that acupuncture may be an effective and safe therapy for migraine. However, the quality of SRs in acupuncture for migraine still needs more improvement.

Download Full-text

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

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph17186920 ◽

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.

Download Full-text

The Influence of Prosthesis Design on the Outcomes of Tooth Implants Immediately Placed and Loaded by Means of One-Piece Titanium Machined Restoration

Journal of Oral Implantology ◽

10.1563/aaid-joi-d-17-00152 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 44 (2) ◽

pp. 87-93 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Paolo Toti ◽

Simone Marconcini ◽

Giammarinaro Enrica ◽

Giorgio Pedretti ◽

Antonio Barone ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bone Loss ◽

Dental Implants ◽

Survival Rates ◽

Autogenous Bone ◽

Marginal Bone Loss ◽

Dental Prostheses ◽

Posterior Maxilla ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Sinus Lifting ◽

Fixed Dental Prostheses

Our purpose was to evaluate the occurrence of complications and the degree of bone loss in a cohort of patients treated with fixed prostheses supported by immediately loaded dental implants. The primary aim was to compare partial versus full-arch fixed dental prostheses. We then tested the effect of sinus lifting. In the present retrospective cohort study, the patients had their implants restored with fixed dental prostheses supported by dental implants positioned in the posterior maxilla and mandible. When necessary, the maxillary sinuses were grafted with particulate autogenous bone. Patients were then ranked according to the following predictors: length of prosthesis, crown-to-implant ratio, number of crowns to number of implants ratio, and presence of sinus lifting. Outcomes were evaluated for up to 2 years regarding the peri-implant marginal bone loss and implant/prosthesis survival rates. Fifty-eight subjects (209 implants) were rehabilitated with 25 fixed full-arch prostheses and 33 partial fixed dental implant bridges (16 supported by implants placed in grafted sinus). The mean marginal bone loss for implants supporting partial fixed dental prostheses amounted to 0.81 mm, whereas that for implants within the group of full-arch fixed dental prostheses was 1.21 mm; the comparison of the levels in the 2 groups showed a significant difference (P = .0055). A statistically significant difference (P = .0006) was found between the bone loss around maxillary implants (1.53 mm) and the bone loss around mandibular implants (1.10 mm). Two implants and 4 prostheses failed; 2-year survival rates of partial and of full-arch fixed dental prostheses, respectively, were 94.1% and 96%. Bone loss in full-arch prostheses appeared to be higher than in that of partial prosthesis. Implant-supported prostheses in the maxillae exhibited a bone loss higher than that registered in mandibles.

Download Full-text

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

BMJ evidence-based medicine ◽

10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111710 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. bmjebm-2021-111710

Author(s):

Rebecca Abbott ◽

Alison Bethel ◽

Morwenna Rogers ◽

Rebecca Whear ◽

Noreen Orr ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Rapid Review ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

High Quality ◽

Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

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