Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

The aim of this meta‐analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL)and post‐operative infection for patients being rehabilitated by turned versus anodised‐surface implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in November 2015. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. Thirty‐eight publications were included. The results suggest a risk ratio of 2·82 (95% CI 1·95–4·06, P < 0·00001) for failure of turned implants, when compared to anodised‐surface implants. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when only the studies inserting implants in maxillae or mandibles were pooled. There were no statistically significant effects of turned implants on the MBL (mean difference‐MD 0·02, 95%CI ?0·16–0·20; P = 0·82) in comparison to anodised implants. The results of a meta‐regression considering the follow‐up period as a covariate suggested an increase of the MD with the increase in the follow‐up time (MD increase 0·012 mm year^?1), however, without a statistical significance (P = 0·813). Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta‐analysis for the outcome ‘post‐operative infection’ was not performed. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.