Busca avançada
Ano de início
Entree
(Referência obtida automaticamente do Web of Science, por meio da informação sobre o financiamento pela FAPESP e o número do processo correspondente, incluída na publicação pelos autores.)

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

Texto completo
Autor(es):
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]
Número total de Autores: 8
Afiliação do(s) autor(es):
[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
Número total de Afiliações: 3
Tipo de documento: Artigo de Revisão
Fonte: Clinical Oral Implants Research; v. 32, n. 9 AUG 2021.
Citações Web of Science: 0
Resumo

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)

Processo FAPESP: 20/05231-4 - Desenvolvimento de um novo hidrogel termosensitivo para liberação controlada de drogas direcionado a prevenção e ao tratamento de inflamações peri-implantares
Beneficiário:Valentim Adelino Ricardo Barão
Modalidade de apoio: Auxílio à Pesquisa - Regular
Processo FAPESP: 19/17238-6 - Revestimento antibacteriano com potencial fotocatalítico sob luz visível para implantes dentários: estudos in vitro, in situ e in vivo
Beneficiário:Bruna Egumi Nagay
Modalidade de apoio: Bolsas no Brasil - Doutorado