Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: A meta-analysis

Chrcanovic, Bruno Ramos; Albrektsson, Tomas; Wennerberg, Ann

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.002

Cited by 91 publications

(81 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(222 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First of all, all confounding factors may have affected the long-term outcomes and not just the fact that implants were placed in smokers or nonsmokers, and the impact of these variables on the implant survival rate, postoperative infection, and marginal bone loss [131][132][133][134][135][136][137][138] is difficult to estimate if these confounding factors are not identified separately between the two different procedures in order to perform a meta-regression analysis. The studies included here have a considerable number of confounding factors, and most of the studies, if not all, did not inform how many implant were inserted and survived/lost in several different conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chrcanovic¹,

Albrektsson²,

Wennerberg³

2015

Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

262

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Smoking and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chrcanovic¹,

Albrektsson²,

Wennerberg³

2015

Journal of Dentistry

Self Cite

262

172

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The use of tilted implants to support fixed partial and full-arch prostheses for the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws can be considered a predictable technique, with an excellent prognosis over the short and middle term (58), though it has been suggested that differences in angulation of dental implants might not affect implant survival or marginal bone loss (59). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review

Soto-Peñaloza¹,

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo systematically review the literature on the “all-on-four” treatment concept regarding its indications, surgical procedures, prosthetic protocols and technical and biological complications after at least three years in function.Study DesignThe three major electronic databases were screened: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL). In addition, electronic screening was made of the ‘grey literature’ using the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe - Open Grey, covering the period from January 2005 up to and including April 2016.ResultsA total of 728 articles were obtained from the initial screening process. Of these articles, 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality assessment showed sample size calculation to be reported by only one study, and follow-up did not include a large number of participants - a fact that may introduce bias and lead to misleading interpretations of the study results.ConclusionsThe all-on-four treatment concept offers a predictable way to treat the atrophic jaw in patients that do not prefer regenerative procedures, which increase morbidity and the treatment fees. The results obtained indicate a survival rate for more than 24 months of 99.8%. However, current evidence is limited due the scarcity of information referred to methodological quality, a lack of adequate follow-up, and sample attrition. Biological complications (e.g., peri-implantitis) are reported in few patients after a mean follow-up of two years. Adequate definition of the success / survival criteria is thus necessary, due the high prevalence of peri-implant diseases. Key words:All-on-four, all-on-4, tilted implants, dental prostheses, immediate loading.

show abstract

“…First of all, all confounding factors may have affected the long-term outcomes and not just the fact that implants were placed in fresh extraction sockets patients or in healed sites, and the impact of these variables on the implant survival rate, postoperative infection and marginal bone loss [105][106][107][108][109][110][111] is difficult to estimate if these factors are not identified separately between the two different procedures in order to perform a meta-regression analysis. The lack of control of the confounding factors limited the potential to draw robust conclusions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%