Survival rate of titanium‐zirconium narrow diameter dental implants versus commercially pure titanium narrow diameter dental implants: A systematic review

Iegami, Carolina Mayumi; Uehara, Priscila Nakasone; Sesma, Newton; Pannuti, Cláudio Mendes; Neto, Pedro Tortamano; Mukai, Márcio Katsuyoshi

doi:10.1111/cid.12527

Cited by 30 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 41 publications

(105 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous systematic reviews have been published that focus on the same subject . However, there are several shortcomings in these studies that should not be overruled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there are several shortcomings in these studies that should not be overruled. The inclusion of high‐risk bias studies, inadequate data abstraction from randomized trials, and different study designs combined in the same statistical effect model might have contributed to significant bias in the quantitative analysis . Some other reviews did not perform statistical analyses, and thus presented findings as comprehensive outcomes .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Alrabiah

2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to establish survival rates, as well as crestal bone loss (CBL) of narrow diameter implants (NDI), compared to regular diameter implants (RDI). The current review followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research guidelines and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses statement. We searched main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register) for articles addressing the focused question up to and including May 2018. Meta‐analyses were conducted for CBL and survival rates. Qualitatively, three clinical studies showed comparable CBL and survival rates between NDI and RDI at follow up. Only one study showed increased CBL around NDI compared to RDI. The overall weighted mean difference (WMD) for CBL (WMD = .06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = ‐.38‐.51, P=.76) and risk difference for survival rate (risk difference = .88, 95% CI = .22‐3.50, P=.85) were not significant between the NDI and RDI groups at follow up. NDI and RDI showed comparable CBL and survival rates. However, the findings of the present study should be interpreted with caution due to significant heterogeneity and the low number of included studies. Further randomized, controlled trials should be performed in order to obtain strong conclusions.

show abstract

“…Numerous systematic reviews have been published that focus on the same subject . However, there are several shortcomings in these studies that should not be overruled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Alrabiah

2018

J of Invest & Clin Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the excellent surface properties of Ti dental implants, the mechanical performance of Ti may not be sufficient in applications requiring narrow‐diameter or short implants or exposure to excessive occlusal stresses . To increase the mechanical performance of Ti while retaining the surface functionality of its TiO 2 layer, titanium‐zirconium (TiZr) alloy has emerged as a promising candidate that also reduces cytotoxicity associated with elements comprising other Ti alloy compositions, especially aluminum (Al) and vanadium (V) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of oral microbial corrosion on the surface degradation of dental implant materials

Siddiqui

Guida

Sridhar

et al. 2018

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This finding indicates that the bone around an implant in the anterior maxilla is more susceptible to lose and implant failure may occur. However, multiple clinical studies reflected the good results of peri‐implant MBL for NDIs . The less MBL (below 0.7‐0.8 mm) has been observed in most recent studies .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Yang

Chen

Gao

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) have been proposed to address the dilemma of implant installation in cases of insufficient bone volume. However, the potential risk factors of failed NDIs, and whether reimplants with reliable efficacy are still controversial. Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the survival/success rate of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region and that of reimplants at the same site, as well as to explore the potential risk factors of original and replaced implants. Materials and Methods From January 2015 to April 2019, patients receiving NDIs in the anterior maxilla were enrolled in the present study. Multiple variables were assessed to exploit the risk factor of failed NDIs, including age, sex, implant sites, length, surface characteristics, and healing abutment designs. The relationship between bone augmentation and the number of missing teeth was assessed. For failed NDIs, the reasons for NDIs removal and marginal bone loss (MBL) were analyzed. The details and outcomes of reimplants were evaluated. Results Cumulative survival rates (CSRs) and success rates of 1095 NDIs installed in 835 patients were 96.99% and 96.51%, respectively. In total, 33 of these NDIs failed. TiUnite (TU) surface was a risk factor and it affected the success rate (92.56%) and CSR (92.4%) of NDIs (P < .001). The single NDIs with bone augmentation have lower failure rate. The average MBL for 33 failed NDIs was 1.92 ± 1.91 mm. Additionally, 22 patients with 23 NDIs accepted reimplantation of previously failed NDIs, and the success rate of reimplants was 95.65%. Conclusions Surface characteristic (TU surface) was a risk factor for failure of NDIs in the maxillary anterior region. Bone augmentation simultaneously performed during NDIs implantation was favorable for a single missing tooth. As an alternative plan, the reimplantation of failed NDIs was reliable and stable after successful bone reconstruction.

show abstract

Survival rate of titanium‐zirconium narrow diameter dental implants versus commercially pure titanium narrow diameter dental implants: A systematic review

Abstract: It can be concluded that TiZr NDIs present similar success rates and peri-implant bone resorption to cpTi NDIs.

Cited by 30 publications

References 41 publications

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Comparison of survival rate and crestal bone loss of narrow diameter dental implants versus regular dental implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Evaluation of oral microbial corrosion on the surface degradation of dental implant materials

Risk factors and reoperative survival rate of failed narrow‐diameter implants in the maxillary anterior region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About