Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental imp...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0216428-e0216428 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0216428 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | e0216428 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 14 |
| creator | Czumbel, László Márk Kerémi, Beáta Gede, Noémi Mikó, Alexandra Tóth, Barbara Csupor, Dezső Szabó, Andrea Farkasdi, Sándor Gerber, Gábor Balaskó, Márta Pétervári, Erika Sepp, Róbert Hegyi, Péter Varga, Gábor |
| description | Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.
The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.
Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06-0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09-0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.
This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0216428 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2219573999</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A584306763</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_ca3deb817dc34c8394f6f7d1cf6ecd5b</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A584306763</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f77454011cfe3e46f0bffc7d7ed3dc3b72e922800e0807b0011616ed182d868b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBYQkJw2MUfiZ1wQFpVfKxUqRIFrpZjT7JeOfE2dkr33-Nlt9UG9YBySGQ_8847M5kse0nwnDBBPqz9OPTKzTe-hzmmhOe0fJSdkorRGaeYPT76PsmehbDGuGAl50-zE0ZwgXmFT7PbK9Wb2qkQbd-iAcyoISADfVQO2W7jVB9Ro6wbB0CDioDqMaLeR9SpobXJAKqTAeTgBhxyPoSPaIHCNkToVLQ6Sd5Y-I1SFtRBVDOVQrbBhufZk0a5AC8O77Ps55fPP86_zS4uvy7PFxczzSsaZ40QeZFjQnQDDHLe4LpptDACDDOa1YJCRWmJMeASixonkhMOhpTUlLys2Vn2eq-7SebkoWlBUkqqQrCqqhKx3BPGq7XcDDZVtpVeWfn3wA-tVEMqxYHUihmoSyJS6lyXrMob3giTzHHQpthl-3TINtYdGJ36OCg3EZ3e9HYlW38jeV5VuSBJ4N1BYPDXI4QoOxs0uDQH8OPON60oK4jY-X7zD_pwdQeqVakA2zc-5dU7UbkoypxhLjhL1PwBKj0GOqvTgBubzicB7ycBiYlwG1s1hiCXV9__n738NWXfHrErUC6ugndjtL4PUzDfg3pIP90AzX2TCZa7BbnrhtwtiDwsSAp7dTyg-6C7jWB_AIULDOw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2219573999</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>Czumbel, László Márk ; Kerémi, Beáta ; Gede, Noémi ; Mikó, Alexandra ; Tóth, Barbara ; Csupor, Dezső ; Szabó, Andrea ; Farkasdi, Sándor ; Gerber, Gábor ; Balaskó, Márta ; Pétervári, Erika ; Sepp, Róbert ; Hegyi, Péter ; Varga, Gábor</creator><creatorcontrib>Czumbel, László Márk ; Kerémi, Beáta ; Gede, Noémi ; Mikó, Alexandra ; Tóth, Barbara ; Csupor, Dezső ; Szabó, Andrea ; Farkasdi, Sándor ; Gerber, Gábor ; Balaskó, Márta ; Pétervári, Erika ; Sepp, Róbert ; Hegyi, Péter ; Varga, Gábor</creatorcontrib><description>Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.
The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.
Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06-0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09-0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.
This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216428</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31050690</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Alcohols ; Analysis ; Biology ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Bone Diseases, Metabolic - etiology ; Bone Diseases, Metabolic - metabolism ; Bone Diseases, Metabolic - pathology ; Bone implants ; Clinical trials ; Confidence intervals ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects ; Dental implants ; Dental Implants - adverse effects ; Dental prosthetics ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dental restorative materials ; Dentistry ; Drinking (Alcoholic beverages) ; Engineering and Technology ; Failure rates ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Interdisciplinary aspects ; Medical research ; Medical schools ; Medicine ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Natural products ; Osseointegration ; Pharmacy ; Physical Sciences ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Retirement benefits ; Sandblasting ; Smoking ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Surgical implants ; Systematic review ; Titanium</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0216428-e0216428</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2019 Czumbel et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2019 Czumbel et al 2019 Czumbel et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f77454011cfe3e46f0bffc7d7ed3dc3b72e922800e0807b0011616ed182d868b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f77454011cfe3e46f0bffc7d7ed3dc3b72e922800e0807b0011616ed182d868b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5506-8198 ; 0000-0002-3673-8491 ; 0000-0002-5915-0383</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6499471/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6499471/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31050690$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Czumbel, László Márk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerémi, Beáta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gede, Noémi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mikó, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tóth, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Csupor, Dezső</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szabó, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farkasdi, Sándor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerber, Gábor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balaskó, Márta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pétervári, Erika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sepp, Róbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hegyi, Péter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varga, Gábor</creatorcontrib><title>Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.
The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.
Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06-0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09-0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.
This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.</description><subject>Alcohols</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Biology</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - etiology</subject><subject>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - metabolism</subject><subject>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - pathology</subject><subject>Bone implants</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dental implants</subject><subject>Dental Implants - adverse effects</subject><subject>Dental prosthetics</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dental restorative materials</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Drinking (Alcoholic beverages)</subject><subject>Engineering and Technology</subject><subject>Failure rates</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interdisciplinary aspects</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical schools</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Natural products</subject><subject>Osseointegration</subject><subject>Pharmacy</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Retirement benefits</subject><subject>Sandblasting</subject><subject>Smoking</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgical implants</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Titanium</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk01v1DAQhiMEoqXwDxBYQkJw2MUfiZ1wQFpVfKxUqRIFrpZjT7JeOfE2dkr33-Nlt9UG9YBySGQ_8847M5kse0nwnDBBPqz9OPTKzTe-hzmmhOe0fJSdkorRGaeYPT76PsmehbDGuGAl50-zE0ZwgXmFT7PbK9Wb2qkQbd-iAcyoISADfVQO2W7jVB9Ro6wbB0CDioDqMaLeR9SpobXJAKqTAeTgBhxyPoSPaIHCNkToVLQ6Sd5Y-I1SFtRBVDOVQrbBhufZk0a5AC8O77Ps55fPP86_zS4uvy7PFxczzSsaZ40QeZFjQnQDDHLe4LpptDACDDOa1YJCRWmJMeASixonkhMOhpTUlLys2Vn2eq-7SebkoWlBUkqqQrCqqhKx3BPGq7XcDDZVtpVeWfn3wA-tVEMqxYHUihmoSyJS6lyXrMob3giTzHHQpthl-3TINtYdGJ36OCg3EZ3e9HYlW38jeV5VuSBJ4N1BYPDXI4QoOxs0uDQH8OPON60oK4jY-X7zD_pwdQeqVakA2zc-5dU7UbkoypxhLjhL1PwBKj0GOqvTgBubzicB7ycBiYlwG1s1hiCXV9__n738NWXfHrErUC6ugndjtL4PUzDfg3pIP90AzX2TCZa7BbnrhtwtiDwsSAp7dTyg-6C7jWB_AIULDOw</recordid><startdate>20190503</startdate><enddate>20190503</enddate><creator>Czumbel, László Márk</creator><creator>Kerémi, Beáta</creator><creator>Gede, Noémi</creator><creator>Mikó, Alexandra</creator><creator>Tóth, Barbara</creator><creator>Csupor, Dezső</creator><creator>Szabó, Andrea</creator><creator>Farkasdi, Sándor</creator><creator>Gerber, Gábor</creator><creator>Balaskó, Márta</creator><creator>Pétervári, Erika</creator><creator>Sepp, Róbert</creator><creator>Hegyi, Péter</creator><creator>Varga, Gábor</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-8198</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3673-8491</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5915-0383</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20190503</creationdate><title>Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>Czumbel, László Márk ; Kerémi, Beáta ; Gede, Noémi ; Mikó, Alexandra ; Tóth, Barbara ; Csupor, Dezső ; Szabó, Andrea ; Farkasdi, Sándor ; Gerber, Gábor ; Balaskó, Márta ; Pétervári, Erika ; Sepp, Róbert ; Hegyi, Péter ; Varga, Gábor</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-f77454011cfe3e46f0bffc7d7ed3dc3b72e922800e0807b0011616ed182d868b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Alcohols</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Biology</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - etiology</topic><topic>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - metabolism</topic><topic>Bone Diseases, Metabolic - pathology</topic><topic>Bone implants</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dental implants</topic><topic>Dental Implants - adverse effects</topic><topic>Dental prosthetics</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dental restorative materials</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Drinking (Alcoholic beverages)</topic><topic>Engineering and Technology</topic><topic>Failure rates</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interdisciplinary aspects</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical schools</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Natural products</topic><topic>Osseointegration</topic><topic>Pharmacy</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Retirement benefits</topic><topic>Sandblasting</topic><topic>Smoking</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgical implants</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Titanium</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Czumbel, László Márk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerémi, Beáta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gede, Noémi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mikó, Alexandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tóth, Barbara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Csupor, Dezső</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szabó, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farkasdi, Sándor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerber, Gábor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balaskó, Márta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pétervári, Erika</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sepp, Róbert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hegyi, Péter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Varga, Gábor</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Czumbel, László Márk</au><au>Kerémi, Beáta</au><au>Gede, Noémi</au><au>Mikó, Alexandra</au><au>Tóth, Barbara</au><au>Csupor, Dezső</au><au>Szabó, Andrea</au><au>Farkasdi, Sándor</au><au>Gerber, Gábor</au><au>Balaskó, Márta</au><au>Pétervári, Erika</au><au>Sepp, Róbert</au><au>Hegyi, Péter</au><au>Varga, Gábor</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2019-05-03</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>e0216428</spage><epage>e0216428</epage><pages>e0216428-e0216428</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.
The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.
Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06-0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09-0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.
This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>31050690</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0216428</doi><tpages>e0216428</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5506-8198</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3673-8491</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5915-0383</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2019-05, Vol.14 (5), p.e0216428-e0216428 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2219573999 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Alcohols Analysis Biology Biology and Life Sciences Bone Diseases, Metabolic - etiology Bone Diseases, Metabolic - metabolism Bone Diseases, Metabolic - pathology Bone implants Clinical trials Confidence intervals Dental Implantation, Endosseous - adverse effects Dental implants Dental Implants - adverse effects Dental prosthetics Dental Restoration Failure Dental restorative materials Dentistry Drinking (Alcoholic beverages) Engineering and Technology Failure rates Heterogeneity Humans Interdisciplinary aspects Medical research Medical schools Medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Meta-analysis Natural products Osseointegration Pharmacy Physical Sciences Research and Analysis Methods Retirement benefits Sandblasting Smoking Statistical analysis Studies Surgical implants Systematic review Titanium |
| title | Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T10%3A14%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Sandblasting%20reduces%20dental%20implant%20failure%20rate%20but%20not%20marginal%20bone%20level%20loss:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Czumbel,%20L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3%20M%C3%A1rk&rft.date=2019-05-03&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=e0216428&rft.epage=e0216428&rft.pages=e0216428-e0216428&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0216428&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA584306763%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2219573999&rft_id=info:pmid/31050690&rft_galeid=A584306763&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_ca3deb817dc34c8394f6f7d1cf6ecd5b&rfr_iscdi=true |