scholarly journals The Impact of Dental Implant Length on Failure Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (14) ◽  
pp. 3972
Author(s):  
Maha Abdel-Halim ◽  
Dalia Issa ◽  
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Implant Length

The present review aimed to evaluate the impact of implant length on failure rates between short (<10 mm) and long (≥10 mm) dental implants. An electronic search was undertaken in three databases, as well as a manual search of journals. Implant failure was the outcome evaluated. Meta-analysis was performed in addition to a meta-regression in order to verify how the risk ratio (RR) was associated with the follow-up time. The review included 353 publications. Altogether, there were 25,490 short and 159,435 long implants. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that short implants had a higher failure risk than long implants (RR 2.437, p < 0.001). There was a decrease in the probability of implant failure with longer implants when implants of different length groups were compared. A sensitivity analysis, which plotted together only studies with follow-up times of 7 years or less, resulted in an estimated increase of 0.6 in RR for every additional month of follow-up. In conclusion, short implants showed a 2.5 times higher risk of failure than long implants. Implant failure is multifactorial, and the implant length is only one of the many factors contributing to the loss of an implant. A good treatment plan and the patient’s general health should be taken into account when planning for an implant treatment.

scholarly journals Smoking and Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 39
Author(s):  
Abir Dunia Mustapha ◽  
Zainab Salame ◽  
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background and Objectives: Tobacco is today the single most preventable cause of death, being associated with countless diseases, including cancer and neurological, cardiovascular, and respiratory diseases. Smoking also brings negative consequences to oral health, potentially impairing treatment with dental implants. The present review aimed to evaluate the influence of smoking on dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL). Materials and Methods: Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus a manual search of journals. Meta-analyses were performed, in addition to meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. Results: The review included 292 publications. Altogether, there were 35,511 and 114,597 implants placed in smokers and in non-smokers, respectively. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that implants in smokers had a higher failure risk in comparison with non-smokers (OR 2.402, p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 2.910, p < 0.001), as well as in the mandible (OR 2.866, p < 0.001). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was 0.580 mm (p < 0.001). There was an estimated decrease of 0.001 in OR (p = 0.566) and increase of 0.004 mm (p = 0.279) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up, although without statistical significance. Therefore, there was no clear influence of the follow-up on the effect size (OR) and on MBL MD between groups. Conclusions: Implants placed in smokers present a 140.2% higher risk of failure than implants placed in non-smokers.

scholarly journals Dental Implants Inserted in Fresh Extraction Sockets versus Healed Sites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (24) ◽  
pp. 7903
Author(s):  
Adam Ibrahim ◽  
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Keyword(s):  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
Electronic Search ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses

The present review aimed to evaluate the difference of dental implant failure rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) between implants inserted in fresh extraction sockets or healed sites. Electronic search was undertaken in three databases, plus manual search of journals, including studies randomized or not. Meta-analyses were performed besides meta-regressions, in order to verify how the odds ratio (OR) and MBL were associated with follow-up time. The review included 163 publications. Altogether, there were 17,278 and 38,738 implants placed in fresh extraction sockets and healed sites, respectively. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that implants in sockets had a higher failure risk in comparison to healed sites: OR 1.349, all studies included; OR 2.070, only prospective non-RCTs; OR 2.487, only RCTs (all p < 0.001). The difference in implant failure between the groups was statistically significant in the maxilla (OR 1.616, p = 0.029), but not in the mandible (OR 2.192, p = 0.075). The MBL mean difference (MD) between the groups was −0.053 mm (p = 0.089). There was an estimated decrease of 0.003 in OR (p = 0.284) and an increase of 0.006 mm (p = 0.036) in the MBL MD between groups for every additional month of follow-up. In conclusion, implants placed in fresh extraction sockets present higher risk of failure than implants placed in healed sites.

scholarly journals A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoran Yu ◽  
Ruogu Xu ◽  
Zhengchuan Zhang ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Feilong Deng
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Complications Rate

AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

Comparison of Early Implant Failure Rates Between Subjects With and Without Orthodontic Treatment Before Dental Implantation

2019 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-34
Author(s):  
Li-ching Chang ◽  
I-ming Tsai
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Group ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Implant Surgery ◽  
Dental Implantation ◽  
And Control

The present study compared early dental implant failure rates between patients with and without orthodontic treatment before dental implantation. The data of adults who had undergone dental implantation between January 2007 and December 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. A total of 124 subjects with 255 implants were divided into a treatment group (46 subjects, 85 teeth) consisting of patients who had undergone implant surgery after orthodontic treatment and a control group of patients who had not undergone preimplant orthodontic treatment. Implants that failed before permanent crown fabrication were defined as failures. No significant differences in gender or age were found between the treatment group and controls. No significant differences were found in implant failure rates in either jaw between the treatment and control groups. However, the failure rate was still higher in the treatment group (14.81%) than in the control group (3.28%) for the maxilla. Results of this study demonstrate an increased implant failure rate only in the maxilla of patients who underwent orthodontic treatment before dental implantation, especially implant surgery combined with a sinus lift procedure. Further study with a larger sample size and longer follow-up period is necessary to confirm results of the present study and identify other confounding factors.

scholarly journals Long-term Short Implants Performance: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Essential Assessment Parameters

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thais Marques Simek Vega Gonçalves ◽  
Sergio Bortolini ◽  
Matteo Martinolli ◽  
Bruna Fernandes Moreira Alfenas ◽  
Daiane Cristina Peruzzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Implant Failure ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Implant Survival Rate ◽  
Short Implants

<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>

scholarly journals 1178 High coronary wall shear strain developed more vulnerable plaque compared to low shear strain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A B Bajraktari ◽  
I B Bytyci ◽  
S E Elezi ◽  
M Y H Henein
Keyword(s):  
Shear Strain ◽  
Vulnerable Plaque ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Necrotic Core ◽  
Core Area ◽  
Plaque Area ◽  
Central Registry ◽  
Wall Shear ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background and Aim Arterial wall strain has been proposed to impact the features of developed plaques. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the impact of different types of wall shear strain (WSS) on the changes of vulnerable plaque in coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods We systematically searched PubMed-Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Central Registry, from 1989 up to May 2019 in order to select clinical trials and observational studies, which assessed the relationship between WSS measured by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and morphology of plaque in CAD. Results In 7 studies, a total of 724 patients with 32,083 segments were recruited, with mean follow up 8.4 months. The pooled analysis showed that low WSS was associated with larger baseline lumen area WMD 2.55 [1.34 to 3.76, p &lt; 0.001], smaller plaque area WMD -1.16 [-0.1.84 to -0.49, p = 0007] and necrotic core area WMD -0.45 [-0.78 to 0.14, p = 0.004], dense calcium score WMD -0.18 [-0.46 to 0.10, p = 0.01], and fibrous area WMD -0.79 [-1.84 to 0.30, p = 0.02] as well as smaller fibro-fatty area WMD -0.22 [-0.57 to 0.13, p = 0.02] compared to high WSS. At follow-up, the high WSS had regression of fibrous area, WMD -0.12 [-0.22 to -0.02, p = 0.02] and fibro-fatty area WMD -0.11 [-0.23 to -0.01, p = 0.04], reduction of plaque area WMD -0.09 [-0.17 to -0.02, p = 0.01] and increased dense calcium WMD 0.08 [0.02 to 0.14, p = 0.006] and necrotic core area WMD 0.07 [0.01 to 0.13, p = 0.03] compared to low WSS (Figure 1). The high WSS developed more profound remodeling compared to low WSS (40 vs. 18%, p &lt; 0.05) with more constructive remodelling with low WSS (78%vs. 40 %, p &lt; 0.01). Conclusions. Baseline high WSS is associated with higher necrotic core, calcium, fibrous and fibro-fatty area compared with low WSS, and during follow up the high WSS resulted in the development of more profound remodeling compared with low WSS. These findings highlighted the role of IVUS in detecting the vulnerable plaque in CAD. Abstract 1178 Figure 1. Mean change of plaque morpholo

Impact of dental implant length on early failure rates: a meta-analysis of observational studies

2011 ◽  
Vol 38 (9) ◽  
pp. 856-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernhard Pommer ◽  
Sophie Frantal ◽  
Jürgen Willer ◽  
Martin Posch ◽  
Georg Watzek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Early Failure ◽  
Implant Length

scholarly journals Minimally invasive instrumentation without fusion during posterior thoracic corpectomies: a comparison of percutaneously instrumented nonfused segments with open instrumented fused segments

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Darryl Lau ◽  
Dean Chou
Keyword(s):  
Implant Failure ◽  
Open Group ◽  
Perioperative Outcomes ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Instrumented Fusion ◽  
Percutaneous Instrumentation ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Reoperation Rates ◽  
Mini Open

OBJECTIVEDuring the mini-open posterior corpectomy, percutaneous instrumentation without fusion is performed above and below the corpectomy level. In this study, the authors' goal was to compare the perioperative and long-term implant failure rates of patients who underwent nonfused percutaneous instrumentation with those of patients who underwent traditional open instrumented fusion.METHODSAdult patients who underwent posterior thoracic corpectomies with cage reconstruction between 2009 and 2014 were identified. Patients who underwent mini-open corpectomy had percutaneous instrumentation without fusion, and patients who underwent open corpectomy had instrumented fusion above and below the corpectomy site. The authors compared perioperative outcomes and rates of implant failure requiring reoperation between the open (fused) and mini-open (unfused) groups.RESULTSA total of 75 patients were identified, and 53 patients (32 open and 21 mini-open) were available for followup. The mean patient age was 52.8 years, and 56.6% of patients were male. There were no significant differences in baseline variables between the 2 groups. The overall perioperative complication rate was 15.1%, and there was no significant difference between the open and mini-open groups (18.8% vs 9.5%; p = 0.359). The mean hospital stay was 10.5 days. The open group required a significantly longer stay than the mini-open group (12.8 vs 7.1 days; p < 0.001). Overall implant failure rates requiring reoperation were 1.9% at 6 months, 9.1% at 1 year, and 14.7% at 2 years. There were no significant differences in reoperation rates between the open and mini-open groups at 6 months (3.1% vs 0.0%, p = 0.413), 1 year (10.7% vs 6.2%, p = 0.620), and 2 years (18.2% vs 8.3%, p = 0.438). The overall mean follow-up was 29.2 months.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest that percutaneous instrumentation without fusion in mini-open transpedicular corpectomies offers similar implant failure and reoperation rates as open instrumented fusion as far out as 2 years of follow-up.

Improvement of Acupuncture Therapy on Relapse of P atients with G outy A rthritis: A Pairwise and Bayesian Network Meta analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhihui Li ◽  
Min Chen ◽  
Chunzhi Tang
Keyword(s):  
Acupuncture Therapy ◽  
Bayesian Network ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gouty Arthritis ◽  
Serum Urate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Fire Needle ◽  
The Impact

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of acupuncturetherapy on relapse of patients with gouty arthritis (GA). Methods: “gout ORgouty arthritis” AND “a cupuncture therapy OR acupuncture OR moxibustionOR electroacupuncture OR fire needle OR acupotomology OR blood lettingpuncture OR plum blossom needle” were used as search strategies forsearching related studies. Twenty two studies involving 2394 patient s wereenrolled in this research through the analysis of databases of CNKI, Wanfang,VIP, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library. Results: The results of pairwise metaanalysis and network meta analysis (NMA) indicated that patients withacupuncture therapy had a significantly lower relapse rate (RR) compared withthose without acupuncture therapy (OR = 0.21, 95% CI: 0.16 0.26, P <0.00001); the follow up time (TFU) and serum urate concentration (SUA)before treatment had no significant effect on the reductio n of RR caused byacupuncture therapy (P > 0.05); and patients treated with acupuncture plusWestern medicine (WM) had the lowest RR (surface under the cumulativeranking [SUCRA] = 85.0%), followed by acupuncture plus traditional Chinesemedicine (TCM, SUC RA = 73.5%), acupuncture only (SUCRA = 72.8%),fourthly acupuncture plus TCM and WM (SUCRA = 33.0%), then TCM(SUCRA = 28.7%), finally WM (SUCRA = 7.0%). Conclusion: Our findingmay facilitate the application of acupuncture therapy in patients with GA. Ourresearch also offered some information for the future research.

scholarly journals The impact of smoking on tuberculosis treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Y. Wang ◽  
R. A. Arrazola ◽  
B. Mathema ◽  
I. B. Ahluwalia ◽  
S. R. Mase
Keyword(s):  
Cigarette Smoking ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Loss To Follow Up ◽  
Tb Treatment ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Culture Conversion

BACKGROUND: Cigarette smoking contributes to tuberculosis (TB) epidemiology. However, limited evidence exists on how smoking impacts TB treatment outcomes such as treatment loss to follow-up and culture conversion.METHODS: This meta-analysis assessed current evidence of the impact of active cigarette smoking on TB treatment outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for English-language articles published from database inception through 2017. Articles addressing active pulmonary TB and cigarette smoking were identified and data abstracted. Smokers were defined as those who smoked every day or some days at the time of interview/diagnosis. Non-smokers did not smoke at the time of interview/diagnosis. Unfavorable outcomes included any outcome other than cure or completion of TB treatment. Three different data sets were examined: 8 articles addressing unfavorable treatment outcomes, 9 analyzing only treatment loss to follow-up, and 5 addressing delayed smear or culture conversion. Studies that had <20 subjects or that addressed only populations with comorbidities were excluded.RESULTS: We identified 1030 studies; 21 studies fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Smokers had greater odds of unfavorable outcomes (pooled odds ratio [pOR] 1.23, 95%CI 1.14–1.33), delayed smear or culture conversion (pOR 1.55, 95%CI 1.04–2.07), and treatment loss to follow-up (pOR 1.35, 95%CI 1.21–1.50).CONCLUSION: Cigarette smoking is associated with negative treatment results and delayed conversion to negative smear or culture, suggesting smoking is an important factor for consideration in TB elimination efforts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document