Long-term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Salvi, Giovanni Edoardo; Monje, Alberto; Tomasi, Cristiano (2018). Long-term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research, 29(Suppl 16), pp. 294-310. Wiley-Blackwell 10.1111/clr.13123

Preview

Text Salvi_et_al-2018-Clinical_Oral_Implants_Research.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial (CC-BY-NC). Download (2MB) | Preview

AIM

To investigate and compare the prevalence of biological complications and failure of implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites after a mean observation period of at least 10 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The focused question "In patients with osseointegrated dental implants, are there differences in biological complications and implant failure at implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites?" was addressed using the Population, Exposure, Comparison and Outcome criteria. Electronic and manual searches supplemented by the screening of the grey literature were carried out. A case definition of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis had to be specified. The binary random-effects method was chosen to conduct meta-analyses. Results are presented as Forest plots with weighted mean values and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I statistic test was applied to quantify heterogeneity. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the parameters provided in the Cochrane Center and CONSORT statement were used for quality assessment. The results are reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

No randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing the outcomes of implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites was identified. Five case-series studies, one case-control study, one cross-sectional study and one RCT were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analyses. No statistically significant differences (p > .05) were observed between implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites for any outcome variables both at patient and at implant levels, respectively. High heterogeneity concerning patient sampling, case definitions of biological complications and eligibility criteria was observed.

CONCLUSION

The studies included in the present systematic review did not directly address the focused questions. Hence, the outcomes of the meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution due to high variability with respect to study design.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

277 since deposited on 19 Feb 2019
39 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item