Dental implants in patients with osteoporosis: a systematic review with meta-analysis

There is currently no consensus regarding the survival rate of osseointegrated implants in patients with osteoporosis. A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the survival rate of implants in such patients. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and SciELO databases were used to identify articles published up to September 2016. The systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA/PICO requirements and the risk of bias was assessed (Australian National Health and Medical Research Council scale). The relative risk (RR) of implant failure and mean marginal bone loss were analyzed within a 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifteen studies involving 8859 patients and 29,798 implants were included. The main outcome of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no difference in implant survival rate between patients with and without osteoporosis, either at the implant level (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.93–2.08; P = 0.11) or at the patient level (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.50–1.89; P = 0.94). However, the meta-analysis for the secondary outcome revealed a significant difference in marginal bone loss around implants between patients with and without osteoporosis (0.18 mm, 95% CI 0.05–0.30, P = 0.005). Data heterogeneity was low. An increase in peri-implant bone loss was observed in the osteoporosis group. Randomized and controlled clinical studies should be conducted to analyze possible biases.     

Systemic risk factors for peri-implant bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to determine the influence of patient-related systemic risk factors (systemic disease, genetic traits, chronic drug or alcohol consumption, and smoking status) on peri-implant bone loss at least 1 year after implant installation and prosthetic loading. An electronic search was performed of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to January 2012. One thousand seven hundred and sixty-three studies were identified. After applying a three-stage screening process, 17 articles were included in the qualitative analysis, but only 13 in the quantitative analysis, since smoking was a common exposure. The meta-analysis of these 13 studies (478 smokers and 1207 non-smokers) revealed a high level of heterogeneity and that smoking increases the annual rate of bone loss by 0.164 mm/year. Exposure to smoking had a harmful effect on peri-implant bone loss. However, the level of evidence for oral implant therapy in patients with systemic conditions is very low. Future studies should be improved in order to provide more robust data for clinical application.     

Nine- to fourteen-year follow-up of implant treatment. Part I: implant loss and associations to various factors

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long‐term result of implant therapy, using implant loss as outcome variable. Material and Method: Two hundred and ninty‐four patients had received implant therapy (Brånemark System^®) during the years of 1988–1992 in Kristianstad County, Sweden. The patients were recalled to the speciality clinic 1 and 5 years after placement of the suprastructure. Between 2000 and 2002, 9–14 years after implant placements, the patients were again called in for a complete clinical and radiographic examination. Results: Two hundred and eighteen patients treated with 1057 implants were examined. Twenty‐two patients had lost 46 implants and 12 implants were considered “sleeping implants”. The overall survival rate was 95.7%. Implant loss appeared in a cluster in a few patients and early failures were most common. Eight patients lost more than one fixture. A significant relationship was observed between implant loss and periodontal bone loss of the remaining teeth at implant placement. Maxillary, as opposed to mandibulary implants, showed more implant loss if many implants were placed in the jaw. A significant relationship between smoking habits and implant loss was not found. Conclusion: A history of periodontitis seems to be related to implant loss.     

Effect of implant loading protocols on failure and marginal bone loss with unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures: systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare implant failure and radiographic bone level changes with different loading protocols for unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures. An electronic search of two databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library) was performed, without language restriction, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate or early versus conventional dental implant loading protocols for unsplinted two-implant-supported mandibular overdentures. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The Cochrane tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. A meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs were identified, seven of which were included; one trial was excluded because related outcomes were not measured. Four of the seven studies were considered to have a high risk of bias and three an unclear risk. Meta-analysis revealed no difference between immediate versus conventional or early versus conventional implant loading protocols regarding implant failure (risk difference (RD) ?0.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?0.13 to 0.10; RD 0.09, 95% CI ?0.03 to 0.20) or marginal bone loss (mean difference (MD) 0.09, 95% CI ?0.10 to 0.28; MD ?0.05, 95% CI ?0.12 to 0.02) for implants supporting mandibular overdentures. These findings should be interpreted with great caution given the serious numerical limitations of the studies included.     

Patient-centred outcomes and dental implant placement in computer-aided free flap mandibular reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Computerised surgical planning (CSP) and computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) have been demonstrated to increase surgical accuracy and reduce operative time in free flap mandibular reconstruction, but evidence is lacking as to their impact on patient-centred outcomes. Implant-supported dental prostheses, however, have been associated with improved quality of life outcomes following free flap mandibular reconstruction. We aim to review reported patient-centred outcomes in mandibular reconstruction with CSP and CAD/CAM and determine whether use of these technologies is associated with higher rates of dental implant placement following free flap mandibular reconstruction. On December 20, 2020, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to PRISMA guidelines for studies reporting quality of life, functional outcomes, and rates of dental implant placement in computer-aided free flap mandibular reconstruction. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to compare dental implant placement rates between surgeries using CSP and those using conventional freehand techniques. A total of 767 articles were screened. Nine articles reporting patient-centred outcomes and 16 articles reporting dental implant outcomes were reviewed. Of those reporting dental implant outcomes, five articles, representing a total of 302 cases, were included in the meta-analysis. Use of CSP was associated with a significant increase in the likelihood of dental implant placement, with an odds ratio of 2.70 (95% CI 1.52 to 4.79, p = 0.0007). Standardised reporting methods and controlled studies are needed to further investigate the impact of CSP and CAD/CAM technologies on functional outcomes and patient-reported quality of life in free flap mandibular reconstruction. Use of CSP and CAD/CAM technologies is associated with higher rates of dental implant placement in patients undergoing free flap mandibular reconstruction when compared to conventional freehand techniques.     

A comprehensive and critical review of dental implant prognosis in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients

OBJECTIVES: The outcome of implant treatment in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients has not been completely clarified. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to perform, applying a systematic methodology, a comprehensive and critical review of the prospective studies published in English up to and including August 2006, regarding the short-term (<5 years) and long-term (>or=5 years) prognosis of osseointegrated implants placed in periodontally compromised partially edentulous patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Using The National Library Of Medicine and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases, a literature search for articles published up to and including August 2006 was performed. At the first phase of selection the titles and abstracts and at the second phase full papers were screened independently and in duplicate by the three reviewers (I. K. K., S. K., I. F.). RESULTS: The search provided 2987 potentially relevant titles and abstracts. At the first phase of evaluation, 2956 publications were rejected based on title and abstract. At the second phase, the full text of the remaining 31 publications was retrieved for more detailed evaluation. Finally, 15 prospective studies were selected, including seven short-term and eight long-term studies. Because of considerable discrepancies among these studies, meta-analysis was not performed. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant differences in both short-term and long-term implant survival exist between patients with a history of chronic periodontitis and periodontally healthy individuals. Patients with a history of chronic periodontitis may exhibit significantly greater long-term probing pocket depth, peri-implant marginal bone loss and incidence of peri-implantitis compared with periodontally healthy subjects. Even though the short-term implant prognosis for patients treated for aggressive periodontitis is acceptable, on a long-term basis the matter is open to question. Alterations in clinical parameters around implants and teeth in aggressive periodontitis patients may not follow the same pattern, in contrast to what has been reported for chronic periodontitis patients. However, as only three studies comprising patients treated for aggressive periodontitis were selected, more studies, specially designed, are required to evaluate implant prognosis in this subtype of periodontitis. As the selected publications exhibited considerable discrepancies, more studies, uniformly designed, preferably longitudinal, prospective and controlled, would be important.     

Long‐term implant survival and success: a 10–16‐year follow‐up of non‐submerged dental implants

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the long‐term results of dental implants using implant survival and implant success as outcome variables. Methods: Of the 76 patients who received 162 implants of the Straumann Dental Implant System during the years 1990–1997, 55 patients with 131 implants were recalled 10–16 years after implant placement for a complete clinical and radiographic examination, followed by a questionnaire that examined the degree of satisfaction. The incidence of biological and technical complications has been carefully analysed for each implant. Success was defined as being free of all these complications over the entire observation period. Associated factors related to peri‐implant lesions were analysed for each implant. Results: The long‐term implant cumulative survival rate up to 16 years was 82.94%. The prevalence of biological complications was 16.94% and the prevalence of technical complications was 31.09%. The cumulative complication rate after an observation period of 10–16 years was 48.03%, which meant that substantial amounts of chair time were necessary following implant placement. The majority of implant losses and biological complications were concentrated in a relatively small number of patients. Conclusion: Despite a relatively high long‐term survival rate, biological and technical complications were frequent. Patients with a history of periodontitis may have lower implant survival rates than patients without a history of periodontitis and were more prone to biological complications such as peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis. To cite this article :
Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long‐term implant survival and success: a 10–16‐year follow‐up of non‐submerged dental implants.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21 , 2010; 772–777
doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01912.x     

Comparison between computer-guided and freehand dental implant placement surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this systematic review was to compare computer-guided (fully guided) and freehand implant placement surgery in terms of marginal bone loss, complications, and implant survival. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019135893). Two independent investigators performed the search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to April 2020 and identified 1508 references. After a detailed review, only four studies were considered eligible. These studies involved a total of 154 patients with 597 dental implants and a mean follow-up period of 2.25 years. There was no difference between computer-guided surgery and freehand surgery in terms of the marginal bone loss (mean difference ?0.11 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) ?0.27 to 0.04 mm; P = 0.16), mechanical complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.36–2.04; P = 0.72), biological complications (RR 1.56, 95% CI 0.42–5.74; P = 0.51), and implant survival rate (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.11–2.43; P = 0.41). This meta-analysis demonstrated that both computer-guided and freehand surgeries yielded similar results for marginal bone loss, mechanical and biological complications, and implant survival rate.     

Outcomes of dental implant treatment in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the current literatures and to assess outcomes of implant treatment in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies considered for inclusion were searched in Pub-Med. The literature search for studies published in English between 2000 and 2012 was performed. Our findings included literature assessing implant treatment in patients with a history of generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP). All studies were screened according to inclusion criteria. The outcome measures were survival rate of superstructures, marginal bone loss around implant and survival rate of implants. All studies were divided into two follow-up period: short term study (< 5 years) and long term study (≥ 5 years).

RESULTS

Seven prospective studies were selected, including four short-term and three long-term studies. The survival rates of the superstructures were generally high in patients with GAP, i.e. 95.9 - 100%. Marginal bone loss around implant in patients with GAP as compared with implants in patients with chronic periodontitis or periodontally healthy patients was not significantly greater in short term studies but was significantly greater in long term studies. In short term studies, the survival rates of implants were between 97.4% and 100% in patients with GAP-associated tooth loss, except one study. The survival rates of implants were between 83.3% and 96% in patients with GAP in long term studies.

CONCLUSION

Implant treatment in patients with GAP is not contraindicated provided that adequate infection control and an individualized maintenance program are assured.