Alexis Ghanem1, Sergio Varela Kellesarian, Tariq Abduljabbar, Nawwaf Al-Hamoudi, Fahim Vohra, Fawad Javed. 1. *Clinical Director, Department of General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. †Resident, Department of General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. ‡Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. §Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ¶Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ‖Resident, Department of General Dentistry, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of osteogenic coatings (placement of a thin film of organic and inorganic osteoinductive and osteoproliferative materials) on implant surfaces in augmenting bone-to-implant contact (BIC) in osteoporotic bone. DATA SOURCES: To answer the focused question "Do osteogenic coatings on implant surfaces increase BIC in osteoporotic bone?" PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google-Scholar databases were searched till June 2017 using different combinations of the following key words: bone-to-implant contact, coating, implant surface, osseointegration, and osteoporosis. Letters to the Editor, review articles, case-reports/case-series, and commentaries were excluded. RESULTS: Six animal studies were included, in which osteoporosis was induced by bilateral ovariectomy. In all studies, implant surface roughness was increased by various osteogenic surface coatings including alumina, hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, and zoledronic acid. Five studies showed that bone volume and BIC are significantly higher around implants with coated surfaces than noncoated implants. In 1 study, there was no difference in BIC around coated and noncoated implants. CONCLUSION: Although experimental studies have shown that osteogenic coatings are effective in enhancing BIC, their clinical relevance requires further investigations.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of osteogenic coatings (placement of a thin film of organic and inorganic osteoinductive and osteoproliferative materials) on implant surfaces in augmenting bone-to-implant contact (BIC) in osteoporotic bone. DATA SOURCES: To answer the focused question "Do osteogenic coatings on implant surfaces increase BIC in osteoporotic bone?" PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and Google-Scholar databases were searched till June 2017 using different combinations of the following key words: bone-to-implant contact, coating, implant surface, osseointegration, and osteoporosis. Letters to the Editor, review articles, case-reports/case-series, and commentaries were excluded. RESULTS: Six animal studies were included, in which osteoporosis was induced by bilateral ovariectomy. In all studies, implant surface roughness was increased by various osteogenic surface coatings including alumina, hydroxyapatite, calcium phosphate, and zoledronic acid. Five studies showed that bone volume and BIC are significantly higher around implants with coated surfaces than noncoated implants. In 1 study, there was no difference in BIC around coated and noncoated implants. CONCLUSION: Although experimental studies have shown that osteogenic coatings are effective in enhancing BIC, their clinical relevance requires further investigations.