Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Platform-switching implants and bone preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Full text
Author(s):
Santiago Junior, J. F. [1] ; de Souza Batista, V. E. [2] ; Verri, F. R. [2] ; Honorio, H. M. [3] ; de Mello, C. C. [2] ; Almeida, D. A. dF. [2] ; Pellizzer, E. P. [2]
Total Authors: 7
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Sagrado Coracao, Dept Hlth Sci, BR-17011160 Bauru, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Estadual Paulista, UNESP, Dent Sch Aragatuba, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Aracatuba, SP - Brazil
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Bauru Sch Dent, Dept Sci Methodol & Stat, Sao Paulo - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 3
Document type: Review article
Source: International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; v. 45, n. 3, p. 332-345, MAR 2016.
Web of Science Citations: 19
Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the possible benefits of platform-switching (PSW) implants when compared to regular platform (RP) implants in the categories of bone preservation and longevity. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement, PICO question, and Jadad scale. The relative risk (RR) of failure and the mean difference for marginal bone loss were calculated considering a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. Heterogeneity and subgroup analyses were performed, and funnel plots drawn. Twenty-five studies (17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and eight prospective studies) involving 1098 patients and 2310 implants were analysed. The meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in crestal bone loss for PSW implants compared with RP implants (-0.41 mm, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.29, P < 0.00001). However, there was no statistically significant difference in implant failure (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.6-2.02, P = 0.75). A reduction in bone loss with PSW implants was observed for the following subgroups: RCTs only, implants in the maxilla, and implants in the mandible. PSW implants presented lower bone resorption compared with RP implants. RCTs should be done to explain the possible biases. (AU)

FAPESP's process: 10/15734-1 - Influence of different implants surfaces implants unit with external hexagon, Platform Switching and Morse taper implant in bone type III and IV. Study by three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Grantee:Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior
Support type: Scholarships in Brazil - Doctorate