Article

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: 3.43). 11/2012; DOI: 10.1111/clr.12063
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: 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. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive search in the electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
102 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to evaluate a new multi-phosphonate surface treatment (SurfLink®) in an unloaded sheep model. Treated implants were compared to control implants in terms of bone to implant contact (BIC), bone formation, and biomechanical stability. The study used two types of implants (rough or machined surface finish) each with either the multi-phosphonate Wet or Dry treatment or no treatment (control) for a total of six groups. Animals were sacrificed after 2, 8, and 52 weeks. No adverse events were observed at any time point. At two weeks, removal torque showed significantly higher values for the multi-phosphonate treated rough surface (+32% and +29%, Dry and Wet, respectively) compared to rough control. At 52 weeks, a significantly higher removal torque was observed for the multi-phosphonate treated machined surfaces (+37% and 23%, Dry and Wet, respectively). The multi-phosphonate treated groups showed a positive tendency for higher BIC with time and increased new-old bone ratio at eight weeks. SEM images revealed greater amounts of organic materials on the multi-phosphonate treated compared to control implants, with the bone fracture (from the torque test) appearing within the bone rather than at the bone to implant interface as it occurred for control implants.
    Journal of functional biomaterials. 09/2014; 5(3):135-57.
  • [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; · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Screw-shaped endosseous implants that have a turned surface of commercially pure titanium have a disadvantage of requiring a long time for osseointegration while those implants have shown long-term clinical success in single and multiple restorations. Titanium implant surfaces have been modified in various ways to improve biocompatibility and accelerate osseointegration, which results in a shorter edentulous period for a patient. This article reviewed some important modified titanium surfaces, exploring the in vitro, in vivo and clinical results that numerous comparison studies reported. Several methods are widely used to modify the topography or chemistry of titanium surface, including blasting, acid etching, anodic oxidation, fluoride treatment, and calcium phosphate coating. Such modified surfaces demonstrate faster and stronger osseointegration than the turned commercially pure titanium surface. However, there have been many studies finding no significant differences in in vivo bone responses among the modified surfaces. Considering those in vivo results, physical properties like roughening by sandblasting and acid etching may be major contributors to favorable bone response in biological environments over chemical properties obtained from various modifications including fluoride treatment and calcium phosphate application. Recently, hydrophilic properties added to the roughened surfaces or some osteogenic peptides coated on the surfaces have shown higher biocompatibility and have induced faster osseointegration, compared to the existing modified surfaces. However, the long-term clinical studies about those innovative surfaces are still lacking.
    The Open Biomedical Engineering Journal 10/2014; 8:114-9.

Full-text

Download
1 Download
Available from
Jan 5, 2015