Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta‐analysis

Abstract

Summary The aim of this meta‐analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL)and post‐operative infection for patients being rehabilitated by turned versus anodised‐surface implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in November 2015. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. Thirty‐eight publications were included. The results suggest a risk ratio of 2·82 (95% CI 1·95–4·06, P < 0·00001) for failure of turned implants, when compared to anodised‐surface implants. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when only the studies inserting implants in maxillae or mandibles were pooled. There were no statistically significant effects of turned implants on the MBL (mean difference‐MD 0·02, 95%CI −0·16–0·20; P = 0·82) in comparison to anodised implants. The results of a meta‐regression considering the follow‐up period as a covariate suggested an increase of the MD with the increase in the follow‐up time (MD increase 0·012 mm year−1), however, without a statistical significance (P = 0·813). Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta‐analysis for the outcome ‘post‐operative infection’ was not performed. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies.

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…[46] Independent researchers published similar observations on other moderately rough surfaces, too. [47] Our results also show that after one year, when osseointegration has already taken place, the difference between the two surfaces diminish and the significance of the difference between implant failures disappear. Additionally, a histological study, using small sample size, also confirmed that, in the long term, both implant types maintained a decent level of osseointegration.…”

Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…When no statistically significant heterogeneity was found, the analysis was performed using a fixed-effects model. 14,15 The risk ratio values were considered significant at P less than .05. A software program (Reviewer Manager 5; Cochrane Group) was used for the meta-analysis and to elaborate the funnel plots.…”

Retrospective clinical evaluation of 2‐ to 6‐unit implant‐supported fixed partial dentures: Mean follow‐up of 9 years

“…When it comes to dental implants, these were in the early years mainly manufactured with a turned (machined) surface or with an extremely highly roughened surface. The adoption of a moderately rough surface improved the survival rates . The implant abutment connection was another part of the implants that had modifications over time.…”

“…The adoption of a moderately rough surface improved the survival rates. 7 The implant abutment connection was another part of the implants that had modifications over time. The external hexagon abutment connection was originally used on the Brånemark implant, but presented some drawbacks.…”