Clinical efficacy of anodized dental implants for implant-supported prostheses after different loading protocols: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author(s)

Nagay, Bruna Egumi ^[1] ; Dini, Caroline ^[1] ; Borges, Guilherme Almeida ^[1] ; Mesquita, Marcelo Ferraz ^[1] ; Cavalcanti, Yuri Wanderley ^[2] ; Magno, Marcela Barauna ^[3] ; Maia, Lucianne Cople ^[3] ; Ricardo Barao, Valentim Adelino ^[1]

Affiliation

^[1] Univ Campinas UNICAMP, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Dept Prosthodont & Periodontol, Av Limeira 901, BR-13414903 Piracicaba, SP - Brazil

^[2] Fed Univ Paraiba UFPB, Dept Clin & Social Dent, Joao Pessoa, Paraiba - Brazil

^[3] Fed Univ Rio de Janeiro UFRJ, Sch Dent, Dept Pediat Dent & Orthodont, Rio De Janeiro - Brazil

• Document type: Review article
• Source: Clinical Oral Implants Research; v. 32, n. 9 AUG 2021.
• Web of Science Citations: 0

Abstract

Objectives To summarize the clinical performance of anodized implants connected to different prostheses design after immediate/early (IL) or conventional loading (CL) protocols. Materials and Methods Seven databases were surveyed for randomized (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs). Studies comparing IL vs. CL protocol of anodized implants supporting single crown, fixed partial denture (FPD), full-arch fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), or overdenture were included. Risk-of-bias was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration tools. Meta-analyses for different follow-up were analyzed, followed by heterogeneity source assessment and GRADE approach. The outcomes included implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability quotient (ISQ), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), and peri-implantitis prevalence. Results From 24 eligible studies, 22 were included for quantitative evaluation. Most RCTs (58%, n = 11) and all the 5 CCTs had high and serious risk-of-bias, respectively. Overall, pooling all prosthesis design, no difference between IL vs. CL protocols was observed for all outcomes (p > .05). However, according to prosthesis type subgroups, CL reduced MBL for full-arch FDP (p < .05). In a point-in-time assessment, with overdenture, although IL presented higher PI (12 months), it showed lower MBL (>= 24 months), higher ISQ (3 months), and lower PD (6 and 12 months) (p < .05). Conversely, PD was higher for IL in single crown (3 and 6 months) (p < .05). Regarding MBL, IL demonstrated higher mean difference for full-arch FDP (36 months) and FPD (12 and 36 months) (p < .05). Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, overall, there is no significant difference in the outcomes between IL and CL loading protocols. (AU)

• FAPESP's process: 20/05231-4 - Development of a new thermosensitive hydrogel for controlled release of drugs to prevent and treat peri-implant inflammations
• Grantee: Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão
• Support type: Regular Research Grants
• FAPESP's process: 19/17238-6 - Antibacterial coating with photocatalytic potential under visible light for dental implants: in vitro, in situ and in vivo studies
• Grantee: Bruna Egumi Nagay
• Support type: Scholarships in Brazil - Doctorate