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

Czumbel, László Márk; Kerémi, Beáta; Gede, Noémi; Mikó, Alexandra; Tóth, Barbara; Csupor, Dezső; Szabó, Andrea; Farkasdi, Sándor; Gerber, Gábor; Balaskó, Márta; Pétervári, Erika; Sepp, Róbert; Hegyi, Péter; Varga, Gábor

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0216428

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results were reported in several studies that evaluated the clinical success with sandblasted implants [19,[26][27][28]. A recent meta-analysis reveals that sandblasted surfaces have better behavior than mechanized surfaces in healthy subjects [26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Another factor that may affect bone loss is the primary closing and healing of the soft tissue around the implant [30]. Czumbel et al [26] developed a systematic review regarding marginal bone loss in mechanized and sandblasted implants and did not found significant differences between both surfaces. However, Åstrand et al [31] found a higher marginal bone loss in the lapse of time between the implant placement and the prosthetic connection in mechanized implants when compared with sandblasted implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this meta-analysis, sixteen randomized controlled trial studies were evaluated, with a total of 722 implants (362 sandblasted and 360 mechanized). The results showed that the risk for failure was 74-80% lower for sandblasted implants when compared to mechanized surfaces after 1 to 6 years [26]. A systematic review reported survival rates of implants with different surfaces (turned, plasma-sprayed, sandblasted, acid-etched, anodized, sandblasted, and acid-etched) with a 10-years follow-up or longer [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fixed Prosthetic Restorations With Sandblasted Surface Implants: Long-term Results of a Clinical Study

Velasco‐Ortega

Jiménez-Guerra

Ortiz-García

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sandblasting is a standard procedure used for treating the implant surface to enhance the osseointegration with known clinical success. This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of sandblasted implants. Two hundred fifty-five MG Osseous screw implants were placed in 81 patients using a two-stage surgical technique and conventional loading protocol (three-months). Implant and prosthetic clinical findings were evaluated during a 15-years follow-up. Four implants were lost during the healing period, and 103 fixed prostheses were placed over the 251 implants left: 58 single-crowns, 31 partially fixed bridges, and 14 full-arch fixed restorations. Fourteen implants were lost during the follow-up period. Clinical results indicated an implant survival rate of 92.9%. 11.8% of implants showed peri-implantitis as the primary biological complication. The mean marginal bone loss was 1.76 ± 0.38 mm, ranging from 0.9 to 2.8 mm. The most frequent complication was mechanical prosthodontic complications (20.9%). Sandblasted surface implants inserted in both maxillary and mandibular areas produce favorable outcomes and stable tissue conditions when a delayed loading protocol is followed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fixed Prosthetic Restorations With Sandblasted Surface Implants: Long-term Results of a Clinical Study

Velasco‐Ortega

Jiménez-Guerra

Ortiz-García

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This meta-analysis was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement (33) using similar approaches that we have recently reported (34)(35)(36). The PRISMA checklist summarizing the content of this review is enclosed in the supporting information (Supplementary Table 1).…”

Section: Protocol and Registrationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Hyaluronic Acid Is an Effective Dermal Filler for Lip Augmentation: A Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The lips and the mouth play an indispensable role in vocalization, mastication and face aesthetics. Various noxious factors may alter and destruct the original structure, and appearance of the lips and the anatomical area surrounding the mouth. The application of hyaluronic acid (HA) may serve as a safe method for lip regeneration. Although a number of studies exist for HA effectiveness and safety, its beneficial effect is not well-established.Aim: The present meta-analysis and systematic review was performed to investigate the effectiveness of HA on lip augmentation. We also investigated the types and nature of adverse effects (AEs) of HA application.Methods: We reported our meta-analysis in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42018102899. We performed the systematic literature search in CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case series and case reports were included. The untransformed proportion (random-effects, DerSimonian-Laird method) of responder rate to HA injection was calculated. For treatment related AEs descriptive statistics were used.Results: The systematic literature search yielded 32 eligible records for descriptive statistics and 10 records for quantitative synthesis. The results indicated that the overall estimate of responders (percentage of subjects with increased lip fullness by one point or higher) was 91% (ES = 0.91, 95% CI:0.85−0.96) 2 months after injection. The rate of responders was 74% (ES = 0.74, 95% CI:0.66−0.82) and 46% (ES = 0.46, 95% CI:0.28−0.65) after 6 and 12 months, respectively. We included 1,496 participants for estimating the event rates of AEs. The most frequent treatment-related AEs were tenderness (88.8%), injection site swelling (74.3%) and bruising (39.5%). Rare AEs included foreign body granulomas (0.6%), herpes labialis (0.6%) and angioedema (0.3%).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis revealed that lip augmentation with injectable HA is an efficient method for increasing lip fullness for at least up to 6 months after augmentation. Moreover, we found that most AEs of HA treatment were mild or moderate, but a small number of serious adverse effects were also found. In conclusion, further well-designed RCTs are still needed to make the presently available evidence stronger.

show abstract

“…This meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement ( Liberati et al, 2009 ) using the same strategy as in our other recent oral cavity/upper GI-related studies ( Czumbel et al, 2019 ; Keremi et al, 2020 ; Ruksakiet et al, 2020 ). The content of this meta-analysis is summarized using the PRISMA checklist ( Supplementary Table 1 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orally Administered Probiotics Decrease Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans but Not Other Periodontal Pathogenic Bacteria Counts in the Oral Cavity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: At the initial part of the gastrointestinal tract, multiple tissues serve the normal function of food delivery. Periodontal structures are integral elements of these. When they deteriorate, it is extremely challenging to regenerate and reconstruct them. The conventional intervention for periodontal disease is scaling and root planning with the aim of reducing pathogenic bacteria. However, periodontal pathogens can rapidly recolonize treated areas. Probiotics have been proposed as novel tools for managing oral health by suppressing pathogenic bacteria through their anti-inflammatory effect, but the available data are controversial.Aim: Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to study the effect of probiotics on periodontal pathogenic bacteria.Methods: The study was registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42018094903. A comprehensive literature search from four electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science) yielded nine eligible records for statistical analysis. Studies measuring bacterial counts in saliva and supra- and subgingival plaque were included. Bacterial counts were analyzed using standard mean difference (SMD) and by a random effects model with the DerSimonian–Laird estimation.Results: The results showed a significant decrease in the overall count of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans in the probiotic-treated group compared to the control at 4 weeks (SMD: −0.28; 95% CI: −0.56–−0.01; p = 0.045) but not later. Analyzing the bacterial counts in subgroups, namely, in saliva and supra- and subgingival plaque, separately, yielded no significant difference. Probiotics had no significant effect on the overall count of Porphyromonas gingivalis at 4 weeks (SMD: −0.02; 95% CI: −0.35−0.31; p = 0.914) or later. Subgroup analysis also revealed no significant difference between treatment and control groups nor did probiotics significantly decrease the overall and subgroup bacterial counts of Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum.Conclusion: Our data support the beneficial effect of probiotics in reducing A. actinomycetemcomitans counts, but not of other key periodontal pathogenic bacteria in periodontal disease patients. However, due to the complex mechanism associated with periodontal disease and the limitations of the available studies, there is a further need for well-designed randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy of probiotics.

show abstract

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

Cited by 10 publications

References 43 publications

Fixed Prosthetic Restorations With Sandblasted Surface Implants: Long-term Results of a Clinical Study

Fixed Prosthetic Restorations With Sandblasted Surface Implants: Long-term Results of a Clinical Study

Hyaluronic Acid Is an Effective Dermal Filler for Lip Augmentation: A Meta-Analysis

Orally Administered Probiotics Decrease Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans but Not Other Periodontal Pathogenic Bacteria Counts in the Oral Cavity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About