Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Apaza Alccayhuaman, Karol Alí; Soto-Peñaloza, David; Nakajima, Yasushi; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N; Botticelli, Daniele; Lang, Niklaus Peter (2018). Biological and technical complications of tilted implants in comparison with straight implants supporting fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research, 29(Suppl. 18), pp. 295-308. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/clr.13279

[img]
Preview
Text
Alccayhuaman_et_al-2018-Clinical_Oral_Implants_Research.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial (CC-BY-NC).

Download (1MB) | Preview

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the implant failure, marginal bone loss (MBL), and other biological or technical complications of restorations supported by tilted and straight implants after at least 3 years in function. METHODS Electronic and manual searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and OpenGrey to identify clinical studies published up to December 2017. After duplicate study selection and data extraction, the risk of bias was assessed with the ROBINS-I tool. Random-effects meta-analyses of relative risks (RRs) or mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/sensitivity analyses and application of the GRADE approach. RESULTS A total of 17 nonrandomized studies (eight prospective/nine retrospective) were included. The number of implants of the overall systematic review was 7,568 implants placed in 1,849 patients supporting either full-arch or partial implant prostheses. No difference in the failure of tilted and straight implants was seen (eight studies; 4,436 implants; RR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.28; p = 0.74), with the quality of evidence being very low due to bias and imprecision. Likewise, no difference in MBL was seen between tilted and straight implants (16 studies; 5,293 implants; MD = 0.03 mm; 95% CI = -0.03 to 0.10 mm; p = 0.32), with the quality of evidence being very low due to bias and inconsistency. Contradictory results regarding implant survival were found from prospective and retrospective studies, which could indicate bias from the latter. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of the present systematic review, no effect of implant inclination on implant survival or peri-implant bone loss was found.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Periodontology
04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > School of Dental Medicine, Periodontics Research

UniBE Contributor:

Lang, Niklaus Peter

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0905-7161

Publisher:

Wiley-Blackwell

Language:

English

Submitter:

Doris Burri

Date Deposited:

26 Jun 2019 09:36

Last Modified:

23 Oct 2019 18:54

Publisher DOI:

10.1111/clr.13279

PubMed ID:

30306700

Uncontrolled Keywords:

axial load complications fixed dental prostheses fixed dental prosthesis implant dentistry nonaxial load prosthetic dentistry systematic review

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.125245

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/125245

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback