Yolanda Natali Raico Gallardo1, Isabela Rodrigues da Silva-Olivio1, Luiz Gonzaga2, Newton Sesma1, William Martin3. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Oral Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Florida (UFL), Gainesville, FL. 3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Florida (UFL), Gainesville, FL.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review on studies assessing clinical outcomes in patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data obtained from patient and clinical outcomes, as implant failure, success rate, survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss, were included on this review. The search was performed on databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled studies, and an adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for observational studies. All data were tabulated according to the time of loading: (1) immediate restoration/loading, (2) early loading, and (3) conventional loading. RESULTS: From a total of 4027 studies identified through the three databases, six of them were randomized controlled trials, five of them were prospective observational studies, and another five were retrospective observational studies. In total, 5954 implants, 1294 patients and 1305 full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were included in this review. There was a wide heterogeneity among clinical studies regarding the study design and treatment procedures. Thus, pooled estimates were not performed in order to avoid potential biases. The methodological assessment by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale showed a moderate quality of observational studies. Regarding the RCTs studies, all of them presented at least one element of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of high survival-success implant rate (95-100%) for either loading protocols (immediate restoration/loading, early loading, and conventional loading). However, careful attention must be taken by clinician when interpreting the results reported in clinical studies. Future studies should be performed using standardized methodology in order to determine the true predictability regarding immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols.
PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review on studies assessing clinical outcomes in patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data obtained from patient and clinical outcomes, as implant failure, success rate, survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss, were included on this review. The search was performed on databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled studies, and an adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for observational studies. All data were tabulated according to the time of loading: (1) immediate restoration/loading, (2) early loading, and (3) conventional loading. RESULTS: From a total of 4027 studies identified through the three databases, six of them were randomized controlled trials, five of them were prospective observational studies, and another five were retrospective observational studies. In total, 5954 implants, 1294 patients and 1305 full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were included in this review. There was a wide heterogeneity among clinical studies regarding the study design and treatment procedures. Thus, pooled estimates were not performed in order to avoid potential biases. The methodological assessment by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale showed a moderate quality of observational studies. Regarding the RCTs studies, all of them presented at least one element of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of high survival-success implant rate (95-100%) for either loading protocols (immediate restoration/loading, early loading, and conventional loading). However, careful attention must be taken by clinician when interpreting the results reported in clinical studies. Future studies should be performed using standardized methodology in order to determine the true predictability regarding immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols.
Authors: Matteo Albertini; Federico Herrero-Climent; Carmen María Díaz-Castro; Jose Nart; Ana Fernández-Palacín; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: María Guerrero-González; Francesca Monticelli; David Saura García-Martín; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; José-Vicente Ríos-Santos; Ana Fernández-Palacín Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Eugenio Velasco-Ortega; Alvaro Jiménez-Guerra; Ivan Ortiz-Garcia; Jesús Moreno-Muñoz; Enrique Núñez-Márquez; Daniel Cabanillas-Balsera; José López-López; Loreto Monsalve-Guil Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Simone Marconcini; Enrica Giammarinaro; Ugo Covani; Andrea Mascolo; Guerino Caso; Marco Del Corso Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2021-12-03 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Edmara T P Bergamo; Everardo N S de Araújo-Júnior; Adolfo C O Lopes; Paulo G Coelho; Abbas Zahoui; Ernesto B Benalcázar Jalkh; Estevam A Bonfante Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Edmara T P Bergamo; Abbas Zahoui; Raúl Bravo Barrera; Salah Huwais; Paulo G Coelho; Edward Dwayne Karateew; Estevam A Bonfante Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.932