4.1 Article

Clinical Performance of Dental Implants with a Moderately Rough (TiUnite) Surface: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Clinical Studies

Journal

Publisher

QUINTESSENCE PUBLISHING CO INC
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5699

Keywords

implant surface; implant survival rate; marginal bone level change; meta-analysis; moderately rough; prospective clinical study

Funding

  1. Nobel Biocare Services AG

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: A moderately rough anodized titanium implant surface (TiUnite) was introduced in 2000. This review and meta-analysis aimed to assess implant survival and marginal bone level (MBL) changes documented in the literature. Materials and Methods: Repeated literature searches on dental implants were conducted, with the final search on October 7, 2016. The inclusion criteria were: prospective study, minimum of 20 patients, at least 12 months follow-up postloading, and TiUnite implant survival reported. Regression analysis was performed on implant survival and MBL change from implant surgery. Peri-implantitis as defined by the primary authors was reported at the patient level. Results: One hundred six out of 32,519 publications on dental implants met the inclusion criteria. Implant survival rates at 1 year were 99.50% at the implant level and 99.12% at the patient level, and survival rates at 10 years were 95.14% at the implant level and 91.50% at the patient level. Mean MBL change at 1 year was -0.409 mm at the implant level and -0.413 mm at the patient level, and at 5 years, it was -0.886 mm at the implant level and -1.029 mm at the patient level. Nineteen studies (18%) specifically reported peri-implantitis in 64 out of 1,229 patients with a mean follow up of 47.89 months, indicating a prevalence of 5.20%, at the patient level. Conclusion: Based on a meta analysis of prospective studies, implants with the TiUnite surface provide a predictable treatment modality in a variety of indications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available