Long-term survival of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants: A meta-analytical approach to the clinical literature

Department of Biomaterials, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Clinical Oral Implants Research (Impact Factor: 3.12). 11/2012; 24(4). DOI: 10.1111/clr.12063
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Calcium phosphate ceramic coatings have the potential to compensate for challenging bone conditions such as delayed or impaired bone healing and low bone quantity or density. Thus, the increasing universal prevalence of subjects with such challenging bone conditions might be paralleled by an enhanced global use of calcium phosphate ceramic-coated dental implants. However, it is speculated that the long-term clinical survival of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants might be adversely affected by coating delamination.
The aims of the current review were (1) to systematically appraise and (2) to meta-analyse long-term survival data of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants in clinical trials.
An extensive search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine (, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the ISI Web of Knowledge, was carried out for articles published between January 2000 and November 2011 to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective clinical trials as well as retrospective analysis of cases (RA) presenting survival data on the topic of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants. Only publications in English were considered, and the search was narrowed to studies in humans with a follow-up of at least 5 years only. Furthermore, the reference lists of related review articles and publications selected for inclusion in this review were systematically screened. The primary outcome variable was percentage annual failure rate (AFR), and the secondary outcome variable was percentage cumulative survival rate (CSR).
The electronic search in the database of the National Library of Medicine, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the ISI Web of Knowledge, resulted in the identification of 385 titles. These titles were initially screened by the two independent reviewers for possible inclusion, resulting in 29 publications suitable for further consideration. Screening the abstracts led to 20 full-text articles. From these articles, 15 reports were excluded. Finally, five of these original research reports could be selected for evaluation. No additional publications were identified by manual search. Thus, a total of five articles were included for analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that neither AFRs of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants increased progressively nor that long-term CSRs for calcium phosphate-coated dental implants were inferior to survival rates of noncoated implants.
We conclude that (1) published long-term survival data for calcium phosphate-coated dental implants are very limited, (2) AFRs of calcium phosphate-coated dental implants do not increase progressively, and (3) long-term CSRs for calcium phosphate-coated dental implants are comparable to survival rates of noncoated implants.

Download full-text


Available from: Jeroen JJP van den Beucken, Jan 05, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose The aim of study paper is to present an overview of osseointegration of dental implants, focusing on tissue response, surface modifications and future perspective. Discussion Great progress has been made over the decades in the understanding of osseous peri-implant healing of dental implants, leading to the development of new implant materials and surfaces. However, failures and losses of implants are an indicator that there is room for improvement. Of particular importance is the understanding of the biological interaction between the implant and its surrounding bone. Conclusion The survival rates of dental implants in bone of over 90 % after 10 years show that they are an effective and well-established therapy option. However, new implant materials and surface modifications may be able to improve osseointegration of medical implants especially when the wound healing is compromised. Advanced techniques of evaluation are necessary to understand and validate osseointegration in these cases. An overview regarding the current state of the art in experimental evaluation of osseointegration of implants and implant material modifications will be given in Part II.
    Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 02/2013; 18(3). DOI:10.1007/s10006-013-0398-1
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to survey evidence pertaining to the sensation differences between natural teeth and osseointegrated dental implants.Material and methodsUsing the MEDLINE (online PubMed) database, Cochrane Library, and Scientific Citation index, we performed a systematic search of articles. We used the following search terms: “perception or sensation and dental implant.” The systematic review of the extracted articles was performed to see the sensation differences between natural teeth and dental implants.ResultsA total of six studies on oral sensation, “tactile sensibility,” and “thickness discrimination” were included in the meta-analysis. As to the “tactile sensibility”, all studies indicated the threshold levels of the implants were about 4–20 times higher than that of natural teeth. The tactile sensibility of an implant was significantly higher than that of a natural tooth, with an standardized mean difference (SMD) of 8.3619 (95% CI, 6.3920–10.3317) and a P < 0.0001. As to the “thickness discrimination”, all studies indicated the threshold levels of implants were about 1.2–2.3 times higher than that of natural teeth. The thickness discrimination was significantly higher than that of natural teeth with an SMD of 1.2368 (95% CI, 0.8699–1.6038) and a P < 0.0001.Conclusion This meta-analysis suggested that both tactile sensibility and thickness discrimination thresholds of implants were significantly higher than those of natural teeth. This meta-analysis reconfirms that sensation differences between dental implants and natural teeth exist.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 10/2013; 25(11). DOI:10.1111/clr.12271 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A systematic analysis of results available from in vitro, in vivo, and clinical trials on the effects of biocompatible CaP coatings is presented. An overview of the most frequently used methods to prepare CaP-based coatings was conducted. Dense, homogeneous, highly adherent, and biocompatible CaP or hybrid organic/inorganic CaP coatings with tailored properties can be deposited. It has been demonstrated that CaP coatings have a significant effect on the bone regeneration process. In vitro experiments using different cells (e.g. SaOs2, hMSCs, and osteoblast-like cells) have revealed that CaP coatings enhance cellular adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation to promote bone regeneration. However, in vivo, the exact mechanism of osteogenesis in response to CaP coatings is unclear, indeed there are conflicting reports of the effectiveness of CaP coatings with results ranging from highly effective to no significant or even negative effects. This review will therefore highlight progress in CaP coatings for orthopaedic implants and discuss the future research and use of these devices. Currently, an exciting area of research is in bioactive hybrid composite CaP-based coatings containing both inorganic (CaP coating) and organic (collagen, BMPs, RGD etc.) components with the aim of promoting tissue ingrowth and vascularisation. Further investigations are necessary to reveal the relative influences of implant design, surgical procedure, and coating characteristics (thickness, structure, topography, porosity, wettability etc) on the long-term clinical effects of hybrid CaP coatings. In addition to commercially available plasma spraying, other effective routes for the fabrication of hybrid CaP coatings for clinical use still need to be determined and current progress is discussed.
    Acta biomaterialia 11/2013; 10(2). DOI:10.1016/j.actbio.2013.10.036 · 5.68 Impact Factor
Show more