scholarly journals Titanium dental implants with different collar design and surface modifications: A systematic review on survival rates and marginal bone levels

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Messias ◽  
Pedro Nicolau ◽  
Fernando Guerra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Surface Modifications ◽  
Titanium Dental Implants

scholarly journals Impact of Dental Implant Surface Modifications on Osseointegration

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf Smeets ◽  
Bernd Stadlinger ◽  
Frank Schwarz ◽  
Benedicta Beck-Broichsitter ◽  
Ole Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implants ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Surface Modifications ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Implant Surface ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
New Techniques ◽  
Surface Design ◽  
Dental Implant Surface ◽  
Experimental Surface

Objective.The aim of this paper is to review different surface modifications of dental implants and their effect on osseointegration. Common marketed as well as experimental surface modifications are discussed.Discussion.The major challenge for contemporary dental implantologists is to provide oral rehabilitation to patients with healthy bone conditions asking for rapid loading protocols or to patients with quantitatively or qualitatively compromised bone. These charging conditions require advances in implant surface design. The elucidation of bone healing physiology has driven investigators to engineer implant surfaces that closely mimic natural bone characteristics. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of surface modifications that beneficially alter the topography, hydrophilicity, and outer coating of dental implants in order to enhance osseointegration in healthy as well as in compromised bone. In the first part, this paper discusses dental implants that have been successfully used for a number of years focusing on sandblasting, acid-etching, and hydrophilic surface textures. Hereafter, new techniques like Discrete Crystalline Deposition, laser ablation, and surface coatings with proteins, drugs, or growth factors are presented.Conclusion.Major advancements have been made in developing novel surfaces of dental implants. These innovations set the stage for rehabilitating patients with high success and predictable survival rates even in challenging conditions.

Zirconia compared to titanium dental implants in preclinical studies—A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 365-395 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Roehling ◽  
Karl A. Schlegel ◽  
Henriette Woelfler ◽  
Michael Gahlert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Preclinical Studies ◽  
Titanium Dental Implants

scholarly journals Survival Rates of Dental Implants in Patients with Papillon–Lefévre Syndrome: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 93-100
Author(s):  
Mohammad Z Nassani ◽  
Sadeq A Al-Maweri ◽  
Sumanth K Veeraganta ◽  
Hashem M Al-Shamiri ◽  
Nader A Alaizari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Survival Rates

scholarly journals Evaluation of Implant Collar Surfaces for Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roodabeh Koodaryan ◽  
Ali Hafezeqoran
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Retrospective Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Present Systematic Review

Background. It is important to understand the influence of different collar designs on peri-implant marginal bone loss, especially in the critical area.Objectives. The purpose of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare dental implants with different collar surfaces, evaluating marginal bone loss and survival rates of implants.Methods. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective studies, which evaluated dental implants with different collar surface in the same study.Results. Twelve articles were included, with a total of 492 machined, 319 rough-surfaced, and 352 rough-surfaced microthreaded neck implants. There was less marginal bone loss at implants with rough-surfaced and rough-surfaced microthreaded neck than at machined-neck implants (difference in means: 0.321, 95% CI: 0.149 to 0.493;p<0.01).Conclusion. Rough and rough-surfaced microthreaded implants are considered a predictable treatment for preserving early marginal bone loss.

scholarly journals Radiological Outcomes of Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Dental Implants: Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (18) ◽  
pp. 6920
Author(s):  
Saverio Cosola ◽  
Simone Marconcini ◽  
Michela Boccuzzi ◽  
Giovanni Battista Menchini Fabris ◽  
Ugo Covani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Tissue Level ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Bone Level ◽  
English Articles

Background: to assess the radiological marginal bone loss between bone-level or tissue-level dental implants through a systematic review of literature until September 2019. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase and other database were searched by two independent authors including only English articles. Results: The search provided 1028 records and, after removing the duplicates through titles and abstracts screening, 45 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. For qualitative analysis 20 articles were included, 17 articles of them for quantitative analysis counting a total of 1161 patients (mean age 54.4 years) and 2933 implants, 1427 inserted at Tissue-level (TL) and 1506 inserted at Bone-level (BL). The survival rate and the success rate were more than 90%, except for 2 studies with a success rate of 88% and 86.2%. No studies reported any differences between groups in term of success and survival rates. Three studies showed that BL-implants had statistically less marginal bone loss (p < 0.05). Only one study reported statistically less marginal bone loss in TL-implants (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In the most part of the studies, differences between implant types in marginal bone loss were not statistically significant after a variable period of follow-up ranged between 1 and 5 years.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document