Clinical efficacy of anodized dental implants for implant‐supported prostheses after different loading protocols: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Objectives To summarize the clinical performance of anodized implants connected to different prostheses design after immediate/early (IL) or conventional loading (CL) protocols. Materials and Methods Seven databases were surveyed for randomized (RCTs) and non‐randomized controlled clinical trials (C...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2021-09, Vol.32 (9), p.1021-1040
Main Authors: Nagay, Bruna Egumi, Dini, Caroline, Borges, Guilherme Almeida, Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz, Cavalcanti, Yuri Wanderley, Magno, Marcela Baraúna, Maia, Lucianne Cople, Barão, Valentim Adelino Ricardo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alveolar Bone Loss
Anodizing
Bias
Bone loss
bone resorption
Clinical trials
Dental Implantation, Endosseous
Dental Implants
Dental materials
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Dental prosthetics
Dental Restoration Failure
Dentures
Heterogeneity
Humans
Immediate Dental Implant Loading
Mechanical loading
Meta-analysis
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Plaque index
Prostheses
Prosthodontics
Quotients
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Subgroups
Surgical implants
survival
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives To summarize the clinical performance of anodized implants connected to different prostheses design after immediate/early (IL) or conventional loading (CL) protocols. Materials and Methods Seven databases were surveyed for randomized (RCTs) and non‐randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Studies comparing IL vs. CL protocol of anodized implants supporting single crown, fixed partial denture (FPD), full‐arch fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), or overdenture were included. Risk‐of‐bias was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration tools. Meta‐analyses for different follow‐up were analyzed, followed by heterogeneity source assessment and GRADE approach. The outcomes included implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability quotient (ISQ), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and peri‐implantitis prevalence. Results From 24 eligible studies, 22 were included for quantitative evaluation. Most RCTs (58%, n = 11) and all the 5 CCTs had high and serious risk‐of‐bias, respectively. Overall, pooling all prosthesis design, no difference between IL vs. CL protocols was observed for all outcomes (p > .05). However, according to prosthesis type subgroups, CL reduced MBL for full‐arch FDP (p 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.13813