Search

Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-25T10:45:02Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021-05-01 The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies comparing implant survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and mechanical and biological complication rates between narrow-diameter implants (NDIs) and regular-diameter implants (RDIs) used for oral rehabilitation in the anterior region. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until May 2020. A total of 843 implants (484 NDIs and 359 RDIs) were included. No significant difference in implant survival rate (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.01 to 0.03; P = 0.34), MBL (standardised mean difference −0.51 mm, 95% CI −1.29 to 0.26 mm; P = 0.19), mechanical complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.04; P = 0.40), or biological complications (RD 0.01, 95% CI −0.09 to 0.11; P = 0.85) was found between the implant groups. Within the limitations of this study, it is concluded that NDIs are an effective alternative to RDIs due to similar survival rates, MBL, and mechanical and biological complication rates. However, future studies are highly encouraged due to the small number of interventional studies on this topic. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Campus of Aracatuba Department of Dentistry Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF) Campus Governador Valadares Governador Valadares Department of Prosthodontics Presidente Prudente Dental School University of the West of São Paulo (UNOESTE) Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Campus of Aracatuba

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:21:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-01-01 Statement of problem: The decision to splint or to restore independently generally occurs during the planning stage, when the advantages and disadvantages of each clinical situation are considered based on the proposed treatment. However, clinical evidence to help clinicians make this decision is lacking. Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations. Material and methods: This study was designed according to the Cochrane criteria for elaborating a systematic review and meta-analysis and adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Also, this review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017080162). An electronic search in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases was conducted up to November 2017. A specific clinical question was structured according to the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) approach. The addressed focused question was “Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted?” The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods to assess the marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations. Results: Nineteen studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analyses. A total of 4215 implants were placed in 2185 patients (splinted, 2768; nonsplinted, 1447); the mean follow-up was 87.8 months (range=12-264 months). Quantitative analysis found no significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted restorations for marginal bone loss. The assessed studies reported that 75 implants failed (3.4%), of which 24 were splinted (99.1% of survival rate) and 51 were nonsplinted (96.5% of survival rate). Quantitative analysis of all studies showed statistically significant higher survival rates for splinted restorations than for nonsplinted restorations. Ceramic chipping, screw loosening, abutment screw breakage, and soft tissue inflammation were reported in the selected studies. The quantitative analysis found no statistically significant difference in the prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted restorations. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, it was concluded that there was no difference in the marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications of splinted and nonsplinted implant restorations; this is especially true for restorations in the posterior region. However, splinted restorations were associated with decreased implant failure. Associate Professor Department of Prosthodontics Presidente Prudente Dental School University of Western São Paulo (UNOESTE) Adjunct Professor Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP) Doctoral student Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP) Graduate student Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP) Full Professor Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School (UNESP) Universidade Estadual Paulista Adjunct Professor Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP) Doctoral student Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP) Graduate student Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School São Paulo State University (UNESP) Full Professor Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Araçatuba Dental School (UNESP) Universidade Estadual Paulista

No consensus has been reached on the use of dental implants in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients. This systematic review evaluated dental implants in HIV-positive patients in terms of implant survival and success rates, marginal bone loss, and complications. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until October 2017. Six studies were selected for review. In total, 821 implants were placed: 493 in 169 HIV-positive patients, and 328 in 135 HIV-negative patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 47.9 months. Weighted mean survival rate, success rate, and marginal bone loss values were calculated for the HIV-positive patients. Mean survival and success rates at the patient level (according to the number of patients) were 94.76% and 93.81%, respectively; when calculated at the implant level (according to the number of implants), these rates were 94.53% and 90.37%, respectively. Mean marginal bone loss was 0.83mm at the patient level and 0.99mm at the implant level. Thus, dental implants are suitable for the rehabilitation of HIV-positive patients with controlled risk factors and normal CD4+ cell counts.

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista

Statement of problem There is insufficient evidence to recommend the restorative material for implant-supported prostheses. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate studies that compared ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations for implant-supported prostheses (within the same study to avoid indirect comparison) in terms of the mechanical and biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rate, and marginal bone loss. Material and methods Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search in databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) for articles indexed until March 31, 2018. The search was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and methods were registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The focused question was “Do ceramic restorations have mechanical/biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rates, and marginal bone loss similar to those of metal-ceramic restorations?” Results The search identified 949 references. The interinvestigator agreement using kappa values was 0.87 for PubMed/MEDLINE, 0.93 for Scopus, and 1.0 for the Cochrane Library. After analysis, 12 studies were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The mechanical complication rate did not differ between ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=.89), independent of the type of prostheses (single crown: P=.63; fixed partial denture: P=.65). The biological complication rate was also not significantly different between ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations (P=.21). The prosthesis survival rate showed no significant differences between the 2 types of restorations (P=.56). Marginal bone loss was also similar for both types of restorations (P=.12). Conclusions This systematic review indicated that ceramic and metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses have similar mechanical and biological complication rates, prosthesis survival rates, and marginal bone loss. Thus, both treatments are appropriate options for long-term rehabilitation treatment.