Zirconia Implants and Marginal Bone Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 707-720
Author(s):  
Higor Borges ◽  
André Correia ◽  
Rogerio Castilho ◽  
Gustavo Fernandes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Zirconia Implants

scholarly journals Failure Rate, Marginal Bone Loss, and Pink Esthetic with Socket-Shield Technique for Immediate Dental Implant Placement in the Esthetic Zone. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Biology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 549
Author(s):  
Pilar Velasco Bohórquez ◽  
Roberta Rucco ◽  
Álvaro Zubizarreta-Macho ◽  
José María Montiel-Company ◽  
Susana de la Vega Buró ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Conventional Technique ◽  
P Value ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Implant Placement

Aim: To compare the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic for the socket-shield technique and the conventional technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone. Material and methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic with the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone was performed. A total of 4 databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 16 articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials, five prospective clinical studies, four retrospective studies, and three case series were included in the meta-analysis. The dental implant failure rate for the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement was 1.37% (95% CI, 0.21–2.54%); however, no statistically significant differences between the conventional and socket-shield technique were found. The estimated mean difference in the marginal bone loss for the socket-shield technique was −0.5 mm (95% CI, −0.82 to −0.18) and statistically significant (p < 0.01), with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The mean pink esthetic score was 12.27 (Q test = 4.47; p-value = 0.61; I2 = 0%). The difference in pink esthetic between the conventional (n = 55) and socket-shield techniques (n = 55) for immediate dental implant placement was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73–1.58; Q test = 8.88; p value = 0.11; I2 = 44%). The follow-up time was found to be significant (beta coefficient = 0.023; R2 = 85.6%; QM = 3.82; p = 0.049) for the PES for the socket-shield technique. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review with meta-analysis, the dental implant failure rate did not differ between the socket-shield technique and conventional technique for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. However, a lower marginal bone loss and higher pink esthetic scores were found for the socket-shield technique compared to the conventional technique.

scholarly journals Marginal Bone Loss and Aesthetics Around Zirconia and Titanium Dental Implants-A Metanalysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pulijala Sathwika ◽  
Rampalli Viswa Chandra
Keyword(s):  
Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Titanium Implants ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cie Lab ◽  
Titanium Dental Implants ◽  
Zirconia Implants

AIM: To evaluate and compare the marginal bone loss and aesthetic outcomes of zirconia implants with titanium implants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic [PubMed] and hand searches were performed to identify randomized controlled trials that were published between January 2008 to April 2020 which investigated and compared various outcomes between zirconia and titanium dental implants. Outcomes included assessment of marginal bone loss and aesthetics using spectrophotometric measurements. Meta-analysis was performed to estimate the above parameters among various studies. RESULTS: A total of 58 articles were screened for titles and abstracts. Subsequently 8 articles were selected for data extraction and evaluation. Zirconia implants were investigated and compared to titanium implants for marginal bone loss [MBL]. Customized zirconia and titanium abutments seated over implants were analyzed for aesthetic outcomes using spectrophotometric method using CIE-Lab measurements. Meta-analysis estimated that zirconia implants exhibited marginal bone loss reduction of 0.179mm (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.33) and -0.242mm (95% CI, -4.026 to 3.542) in aesthetic measurements than titanium implants. CONCLUSIONS: No heterogeneity was observed among studies analyzed for marginal bone loss and significant differences were noticed between two groups. Noticeable heterogeneity was observed among studies assessing aesthetics using spectrophotometry and CIE-Lab measurements and results revealed no many significant differences between the two groups.

Influence of abutment height on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 122 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-21.e2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhaozhao Chen ◽  
Cho-Ying Lin ◽  
Junying Li ◽  
Hom-Lay Wang ◽  
Haiyang Yu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss

scholarly journals Scientific Trends in Clinical Research on Zirconia Dental Implants: A Bibliometric Review

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (23) ◽  
pp. 5534
Author(s):  
Felice Lorusso ◽  
Sammy Noumbissi ◽  
Inchingolo Francesco ◽  
Biagio Rapone ◽  
Ahmad G. A. Khater ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Bone Loss ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Dental Implants ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Marginal Bone Loss ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
Bibliometric Review ◽  
Zirconia Implants

Background: The clinical use of zirconia implants has been shown to increase steadily due to their biological, aesthetic, and physical properties; therefore, this bibliometric study aimed to review the clinical research and co-authors in the field of zirconia dental implant rehabilitation. Methods: We searched Scopus and Web of Science databases using a comprehensive search strategy to 5 October 2020, and independently paired reviewers who screened studies, and collected data with inclusion criteria restricted to clinical research only (either prospective or retrospective). Data on article title, co-authors, number of citations received, journal details, publication year, country and institution involved, funding, study design, marginal bone loss, survival rate, failure, follow-up, and the author’s bibliometric data were collected and evaluated. Results: A total of 29 clinical studies were published between 2008 and 2020 as 41.4% were prospective cohort studies and 48.3% originated from Germany. Most of the included studies had been published in Clinical Oral Implant Research (n = 12), and the most productive institution was the Medical Center of University of Freiburg. The author with the largest number of clinical studies on zirconia implants was Kohal R.J. (n = 10), followed by Spies B.C. (n = 8). Conclusions: This study revealed that zirconia implants have been more prominent in the last ten years, which is a valuable option for oral rehabilitation with marginal bone loss and survival rate comparable to titanium dental implants.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document