In April 2016 Manchester eScholar was replaced by the University of Manchester’s new Research Information Management System, Pure. In the autumn the University’s research outputs will be available to search and browse via a new Research Portal. Until then the University’s full publication record can be accessed via a temporary portal and the old eScholar content is available to search and browse via this archive.

A 5-year follow-up comparative analysis of the efficacy of various osseointegrated dental implant systems: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials.

Esposito MA, Grusovin M, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20( 4):557-68.

Access to files

Full-text and supplementary files are not available from Manchester eScholar. Use our list of Related resources to find this item elsewhere. Alternatively, request a copy from the Library's Document supply service.

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test the null hypothesis that there is no difference in failure rates between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant systems after 5 years of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search was conducted for all randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing different implant systems with a follow-up of 5 years. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were also searched by hand. Written contacts were established with authors of the identified RCTs and with more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and personal contacts to identify unpublished RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on February 1, 2005. Screening of eligible studies, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Results were expressed as random effect models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Ten RCTs were identified. Four of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 204 patients, were considered suitable for inclusion. Six different implant types were compared. On a per-patient rather than a per-implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences, with the exception of more marginal bone loss around early loaded Southern implants when compared to early loaded Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However, the difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: There were no clinical differences among implant systems. However, these findings are based on only 4 RCTs with few participants. More RCTs should be conducted with larger patient samples.

Bibliographic metadata

Type of resource:
Content type:
Publication type:
Publication form:
Published date:
ISSN:
Place of publication:
United States
Volume:
20( 4)
Start page:
557
End page:
68
Pagination:
557-68
Access state:
Active

Institutional metadata

University researcher(s):

Record metadata

Manchester eScholar ID:
uk-ac-man-scw:1d11180
Created:
29th August, 2009, 15:58:19
Last modified:
29th August, 2009, 15:58:19

Can we help?

The library chat service will be available from 11am-3pm Monday to Friday (excluding Bank Holidays). You can also email your enquiry to us.