Influence of Different Implant Geometry in Clinical Longevity and Maintenance of Marginal Bone: A Systematic Review

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics 2019-02, Vol.28 (2), p.e713-e721
• Main Authors: Lovatto, Sabrina Telles, Bassani, Rafaela, Sarkis‐Onofre, Rafael, dos Santos, Mateus Bertolini Fernandes
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology; Bone implants; Bone loss; Clinical trials; Cylindrical implant; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - methods; Dental Implants; Dental prosthetics; Dental Restoration Failure - statistics & numerical data; Dental restorative materials; Geometry; Humans; implant geometry; Longevity; marginal bone loss; Neck; Reviews; Success; Survival; Systematic review; tapered implant; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12790

Purpose To assess, through a systematic review, the influence of different implant geometries on clinical longevity and maintenance of marginal bone tissue. Methods An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, limited to studies written in English from 1996 to 2017 using specific search strategies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared dental implants and their geometries were included. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Results From the 4006 references identified by the search, 24 were considered eligible for full‐text analysis, after which 10 studies were included in this review. A similar behavior of marginal bone loss between tapered and cylindrical geometries was observed; however, implants that had micro‐threads in the neck presented a slight decrease of marginal bone loss compared to implants with straight or smooth neck. Success and survival rates were high, with cylindrical implants presenting higher success and survival rates than tapered ones. Conclusions Implant geometry seems to have little influence on marginal bone loss (MBL) and survival and success rates after 1 year of implant placement; however, the evidence in this systematic review was classified as very low due to limitations such as study design, sample size, and publication bias. Thus, more well‐designed RCTs should be conducted to provide evidence regarding the influence of implant geometry on MBL and survival and success rates after 1 year of implant placement.