The influence of two distinct surface modification techniques on the clinical efficacy of titanium implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 1.8 3区医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jormas.2024.101855

{"title":"The influence of two distinct surface modification techniques on the clinical efficacy of titanium implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jormas.2024.101855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness of anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched surface modification implants in clinical applications.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023423656). A systematic search was performed using seven databases. The meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 program and Stata 17.0 software. An analysis of the risk of bias in the included studies was conducted using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>A comprehensive analysis of 16 studies, which collectively encompassed a total of 2768 implants, was finished. Following a five years follow-up, the meta-analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate of implants was lower in the anodized group compared to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (RR, 3.47; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 9.81; </span><em>P</em><span> = 0.02). Furthermore, the anodized group and the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group had similar marginal bone loss over the one to three years follow-up period. However, it was observed that the marginal bone loss increased at the five years follow-up period in the anodized group in comparison to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (SMD, 2.98; 95 % CI, 0.91 to 5.06; </span><em>P</em><span> = 0.005). In terms of biological complications, plaque index<span>, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, we found no statistically significant differences between the anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group.</span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group exhibited higher implants cumulative survival rate and less marginal bone loss compared to the anodized group. Moreover, both groups demonstrated similar incidences of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, suggesting overall equivalence in these aspects.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55993,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","volume":"125 5","pages":"Article 101855"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468785524000910","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the effectiveness of anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched surface modification implants in clinical applications.

Methods

This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023423656). A systematic search was performed using seven databases. The meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 program and Stata 17.0 software. An analysis of the risk of bias in the included studies was conducted using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

Results

A comprehensive analysis of 16 studies, which collectively encompassed a total of 2768 implants, was finished. Following a five years follow-up, the meta-analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate of implants was lower in the anodized group compared to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (RR, 3.47; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 9.81; P = 0.02). Furthermore, the anodized group and the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group had similar marginal bone loss over the one to three years follow-up period. However, it was observed that the marginal bone loss increased at the five years follow-up period in the anodized group in comparison to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (SMD, 2.98; 95 % CI, 0.91 to 5.06; P = 0.005). In terms of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, we found no statistically significant differences between the anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group.

Conclusions

The sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group exhibited higher implants cumulative survival rate and less marginal bone loss compared to the anodized group. Moreover, both groups demonstrated similar incidences of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, suggesting overall equivalence in these aspects.

查看原文本刊更多论文

两种不同的表面改性技术对钛植入物临床疗效的影响：系统回顾与荟萃分析

比较阳极氧化处理和喷砂处理的大颗粒酸蚀表面改性植入物在临床应用中的有效性。本系统综述已在 PROSPERO 注册（CRD42023423656）。我们使用七个数据库进行了系统检索。荟萃分析使用 RevMan 5.4 程序和 Stata 17.0 软件进行。使用《科克伦干预措施系统综述手册》和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表对纳入研究的偏倚风险进行了分析。最终完成了对 16 项研究的综合分析，这些研究共包含 2768 个植入物。经过五年的随访，荟萃分析表明，与喷砂大颗粒酸蚀组相比，阳极氧化组种植体的累积存活率较低（RR，3.47；95% 置信区间[CI]，1.23 至 9.81；= 0.02）。此外，在一至三年的随访期间，阳极氧化组和喷砂大颗粒酸蚀组的边缘骨质流失情况相似。但在五年的随访期间，观察到阳极氧化组与喷砂大颗粒酸蚀组相比，边缘骨质流失有所增加（SMD，2.98；95 % CI，0.91 至 5.06；= 0.005）。在生物并发症、牙菌斑指数、探诊出血和探诊袋深度方面，我们发现阳极氧化组和喷砂大颗粒酸蚀组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异。与阳极氧化组相比，喷砂大颗粒酸蚀组的种植体累积存活率更高，边缘骨损失更少。此外，两组的生物并发症、牙菌斑指数、探诊出血和探诊袋深度的发生率相似，这表明两组在这些方面总体相当。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊