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: 3.89). 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 (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).
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

Full-text

Available from: Jeroen JJP van den Beucken, Jan 05, 2015
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2013 · Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To present new techniques for implant coatings, biological tissue response to them, and, if applicable, clinical outcome. A search for publications was done in PubMed using search words such as coated dental implants, clinical outcome, dental implant coatings and combinations thereof. Further, a manual search was done. 216 papers were found; the selection was directed towards in vivo investigations. Several different coatings are described in the literature, many of them with the purpose to be bioactive. Such surface coatings include hydroxyapatite, bioglass, proteins, polysaccharides and drugs. The majority of the publications are evaluations in vitro; most of the in vivo studies are directed to implant incorporation in bone. Rather few exist that use a coat to promote soft tissue adhesion or prevention of infection.
    No preview · Article · Apr 2013 · American journal of dentistry
  • [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.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2013 · Clinical Oral Implants Research
Show more