Links to Exploration step
Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Meta-analysis of Failure and Survival Rate of Implant-supported Single Crowns, Fixed Partial Denture, and Implant Tooth-supported Prostheses</title><author><name sortKey="Muddugangadhar, B C" sort="Muddugangadhar, B C" uniqKey="Muddugangadhar B" first="B C" last="Muddugangadhar">B C Muddugangadhar</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff1">Reader, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Amarnath, G S" sort="Amarnath, G S" uniqKey="Amarnath G" first="G S" last="Amarnath">G S Amarnath</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff2">Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sonika, Radhika" sort="Sonika, Radhika" uniqKey="Sonika R" first="Radhika" last="Sonika">Radhika Sonika</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff3">Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Chheda, Pratik S" sort="Chheda, Pratik S" uniqKey="Chheda P" first="Pratik S" last="Chheda">Pratik S. Chheda</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff4">Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Guardian College of Dental Sciences, Ambernath, Thane, Mumbai, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Garg, Ashu" sort="Garg, Ashu" uniqKey="Garg A" first="Ashu" last="Garg">Ashu Garg</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff3">Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">26435609</idno><idno type="pmc">4589703</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4589703</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:4589703</idno><date when="2015">2015</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">000339</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Pmc" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="PMC">000339</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Meta-analysis of Failure and Survival Rate of Implant-supported Single Crowns, Fixed Partial Denture, and Implant Tooth-supported Prostheses</title><author><name sortKey="Muddugangadhar, B C" sort="Muddugangadhar, B C" uniqKey="Muddugangadhar B" first="B C" last="Muddugangadhar">B C Muddugangadhar</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff1">Reader, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Amarnath, G S" sort="Amarnath, G S" uniqKey="Amarnath G" first="G S" last="Amarnath">G S Amarnath</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff2">Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Sonika, Radhika" sort="Sonika, Radhika" uniqKey="Sonika R" first="Radhika" last="Sonika">Radhika Sonika</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff3">Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Chheda, Pratik S" sort="Chheda, Pratik S" uniqKey="Chheda P" first="Pratik S" last="Chheda">Pratik S. Chheda</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff4">Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Guardian College of Dental Sciences, Ambernath, Thane, Mumbai, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Garg, Ashu" sort="Garg, Ashu" uniqKey="Garg A" first="Ashu" last="Garg">Ashu Garg</name><affiliation><nlm:aff id="aff3">Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</nlm:aff></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Journal of International Oral Health : JIOH</title><idno type="ISSN">0976-7428</idno><idno type="eISSN">0976-1799</idno><imprint><date when="2015">2015</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><sec id="st1"><title>Background:</title><p>Dental implants have become the most viable option for rehabilitation. Although, many studies report the success of these reconstructions using implants, a cumulative data about the various studies and the failure rate still remain unaddressed. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to analyze these data and to derive the cumulative survival rate of different implant-supported prosthesis.</p></sec><sec id="st2"><title>Materials and Methods:</title><p>Manual searches followed by a MEDLINE search were conducted to select prospective and retrospective cohort studies on single crowns (SCs), fixed partial denture (FPD), and tooth implant connected prostheses with a mean follow-up time of minimum of 5 years. Random-effects Poisson’s regression models have been used to obtain summary estimates for implant failure and survival rates.</p></sec><sec id="st3"><title>Results:</title><p>Data were extracted from the final selected 63 studies. In a meta-analysis of these studies, the survival rate of SCs supported by implants (95% CI) was 96.363%, for FPDs was 94.525% and implant tooth-supported prostheses was 91.27% after 5 years of function. The cumulative failure rate per 100 FPD years of the SCs, FPDs, and implant tooth-supported prostheses were 0.684, 0.881, and 1.514, respectively.</p></sec><sec id="st4"><title>Conclusion:</title><p>The study concludes high survival rates for implant-supported SCs followed by implant-supported FPDs can be expected over an observation period of 5 years. However, tooth implant-supported prostheses can be provided if there are certain limitations prohibiting the completely implant-supported prostheses.</p></sec></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lekholm, U" uniqKey="Lekholm U">U Lekholm</name></author><author><name sortKey="Gunne, J" uniqKey="Gunne J">J Gunne</name></author><author><name sortKey="Henry, P" uniqKey="Henry P">P Henry</name></author><author><name sortKey="Higuchi, K" uniqKey="Higuchi K">K Higuchi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Linden, U" uniqKey="Linden U">U Lindén</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bergstrom, C" uniqKey="Bergstrom C">C Bergström</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Weber, Hp" uniqKey="Weber H">HP Weber</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sukotjo, C" uniqKey="Sukotjo C">C Sukotjo</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Calandriello, R" uniqKey="Calandriello R">R Calandriello</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tomatis, M" uniqKey="Tomatis M">M Tomatis</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Palmqvist, S" uniqKey="Palmqvist S">S Palmqvist</name></author><author><name sortKey="Swartz, B" uniqKey="Swartz B">B Swartz</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Romeo, E" uniqKey="Romeo E">E Romeo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Storelli, S" uniqKey="Storelli S">S Storelli</name></author><author><name sortKey="Casano, G" uniqKey="Casano G">G Casano</name></author><author><name sortKey="Scanferla, M" uniqKey="Scanferla M">M Scanferla</name></author><author><name sortKey="Botticelli, D" uniqKey="Botticelli D">D Botticelli</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Romeo, E" uniqKey="Romeo E">E Romeo</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lops, D" uniqKey="Lops D">D Lops</name></author><author><name sortKey="Margutti, E" uniqKey="Margutti E">E Margutti</name></author><author><name sortKey="Ghisolfi, M" uniqKey="Ghisolfi M">M Ghisolfi</name></author><author><name sortKey="Chiapasco, M" uniqKey="Chiapasco M">M Chiapasco</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vogel, G" uniqKey="Vogel G">G Vogel</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sailer, I" uniqKey="Sailer I">I Sailer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pjetursson, Be" uniqKey="Pjetursson B">BE Pjetursson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zwahlen, M" uniqKey="Zwahlen M">M Zwahlen</name></author><author><name sortKey="H Mmerle, Ch" uniqKey="H Mmerle C">CH Hämmerle</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Esposito, M" uniqKey="Esposito M">M Esposito</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hirsch, J" uniqKey="Hirsch J">J Hirsch</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lekholm, U" uniqKey="Lekholm U">U Lekholm</name></author><author><name sortKey="Thomsen, P" uniqKey="Thomsen P">P Thomsen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pjetursson, Be" uniqKey="Pjetursson B">BE Pjetursson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tan, K" uniqKey="Tan K">K Tan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Np" uniqKey="Lang N">NP Lang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bra Gger, U" uniqKey="Bra Gger U">U Bra¨gger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Egger, M" uniqKey="Egger M">M Egger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zwahlen, M" uniqKey="Zwahlen M">M Zwahlen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lang, Np" uniqKey="Lang N">NP Lang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Pjetursson, Be" uniqKey="Pjetursson B">BE Pjetursson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tan, K" uniqKey="Tan K">K Tan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Br Gger, U" uniqKey="Br Gger U">U Brägger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Egger, M" uniqKey="Egger M">M Egger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zwahlen, M" uniqKey="Zwahlen M">M Zwahlen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pjetursson, Be" uniqKey="Pjetursson B">BE Pjetursson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Tan, K" uniqKey="Tan K">K Tan</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, Np" uniqKey="Lang N">NP Lang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Br Gger, U" uniqKey="Br Gger U">U Brägger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Egger, M" uniqKey="Egger M">M Egger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zwahlen, M" uniqKey="Zwahlen M">M Zwahlen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">J Int Oral Health</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">J Int Oral Health</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">JIOH</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Journal of International Oral Health : JIOH</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">0976-7428</issn><issn pub-type="epub">0976-1799</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co</publisher-name><publisher-loc>India</publisher-loc></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">26435609</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">4589703</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">JIOH-7-11</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Original Research</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Meta-analysis of Failure and Survival Rate of Implant-supported Single Crowns, Fixed Partial Denture, and Implant Tooth-supported Prostheses</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Muddugangadhar</surname><given-names>B C</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Amarnath</surname><given-names>G S</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Sonika</surname><given-names>Radhika</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Chheda</surname><given-names>Pratik S</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4">4</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Garg</surname><given-names>Ashu</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3">3</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label>Reader, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</aff><aff id="aff2"><label>2</label>Professor and Head, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</aff><aff id="aff3"><label>3</label>Post Graduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India</aff><aff id="aff4"><label>4</label>Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, Guardian College of Dental Sciences, Ambernath, Thane, Mumbai, India</aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><bold><italic>Correspondence:</italic></bold> Dr. Sonika R. Department of Prosthodontics including Crown and Bridge and Implantology, M R Ambedkar Dental College and Hospital, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. Phone: (0)9900409216, Email: <email xlink:href="sonika.radhika@gmail.com">sonika.radhika@gmail.com</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>9</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>7</volume><issue>9</issue><fpage>11</fpage><lpage>17</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>12</day><month>3</month><year>2015</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>7</month><year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright: © Journal of International Oral Health</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2015</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0"><license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><sec id="st1"><title>Background:</title><p>Dental implants have become the most viable option for rehabilitation. Although, many studies report the success of these reconstructions using implants, a cumulative data about the various studies and the failure rate still remain unaddressed. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to analyze these data and to derive the cumulative survival rate of different implant-supported prosthesis.</p></sec><sec id="st2"><title>Materials and Methods:</title><p>Manual searches followed by a MEDLINE search were conducted to select prospective and retrospective cohort studies on single crowns (SCs), fixed partial denture (FPD), and tooth implant connected prostheses with a mean follow-up time of minimum of 5 years. Random-effects Poisson’s regression models have been used to obtain summary estimates for implant failure and survival rates.</p></sec><sec id="st3"><title>Results:</title><p>Data were extracted from the final selected 63 studies. In a meta-analysis of these studies, the survival rate of SCs supported by implants (95% CI) was 96.363%, for FPDs was 94.525% and implant tooth-supported prostheses was 91.27% after 5 years of function. The cumulative failure rate per 100 FPD years of the SCs, FPDs, and implant tooth-supported prostheses were 0.684, 0.881, and 1.514, respectively.</p></sec><sec id="st4"><title>Conclusion:</title><p>The study concludes high survival rates for implant-supported SCs followed by implant-supported FPDs can be expected over an observation period of 5 years. However, tooth implant-supported prostheses can be provided if there are certain limitations prohibiting the completely implant-supported prostheses.</p></sec></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Case-control</kwd><kwd>cohort</kwd><kwd>failure</kwd><kwd>implants</kwd><kwd>survival</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec sec-type="intro" id="sec1-1"><title>Introduction</title><p>The use of dental implants in the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients has become a well-established and accepted contemporary clinical method with predictable long-term success.<xref rid="ref1" ref-type="bibr">1</xref>,<xref rid="ref2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref> The majority of studies examining implant success have emphasized the integrity of implant-bone support and the quality of osseointegration typically evaluated using parameters such as implant mobility, inflammation, infection around the implant site, and peri-implant bone loss. Predictable results are believed to depend on good initial implant stability, controlled loading conditions, and an osseo-conductive implant surface.<xref rid="ref3" ref-type="bibr">3</xref> As implant therapy evolves and becomes the standard of care, and the population seeks out alternatives to traditional fixed partial dentures (FPDs), success will be dependent on more than simply osseointegration.</p><p>Restorative therapy using dental implants is considered a safe and predictable treatment procedure in edentulous and partially dentate patients. These therapies range from cantilevers, resin-bonded bridges, FPDs to implant-supported SCs, and bridges.<xref rid="ref4" ref-type="bibr">4</xref>,<xref rid="ref5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref> Changes in the restorative treatment patterns and the introduction of new and improved restorative materials and techniques have greatly influenced the longevity and esthetic outcomes.<xref rid="ref6" ref-type="bibr">6</xref> The focus of implant research is shifting from descriptions of clinical success to the identification of factors associated with failure.<xref rid="ref7" ref-type="bibr">7</xref></p><p>To date, most studies evaluating risk factors for failure are flawed in terms of their statistical analysis. Many researchers assessed survival in a binary manner (yes or no) (Jemt <italic>et al.</italic>, 1996; Lazzara <italic>et al.</italic>, 1996; Rosenquist and Grenthe, 1996; Cooper <italic>et al.</italic>, 1999; Chaffee <italic>et al.</italic>, 2002) or applied statistical methods assuming that the implant observations were independent of each other (Wheeler, 1996; Buser <italic>et al.</italic>, 1997; Brocard <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000; Testori <italic>et al.</italic>, 2001). Prospective and longitudinal studies related to partial edentulous indicate cumulative survival rates ranging from 89% to 95% and cumulative survival rates ranging from 93.6% to 96.7%, 3-7 years after loading.<xref rid="ref5" ref-type="bibr">5</xref> In addition, for a meaningful interpretation of the survival rate, a minimum of 5-year follow-up would be required.<xref rid="ref8" ref-type="bibr">8</xref></p><p>Recent systematic reviews have evaluated the survival of tooth- and implant-supported reconstructions of different designs and described the incidence of biological and technical complications after a 5-year period.<xref rid="ref9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref>-<xref rid="ref11" ref-type="bibr">11</xref> The survival of FPD with two different designs ranged from 92.5% for cantilever FPDs to 93.8% for conventional FPDs in this study.<xref rid="ref8" ref-type="bibr">8</xref>,<xref rid="ref9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref></p><p>However, data toward the failures occurring in various implant-supported fixed prosthesis like single crowns (SCs), bridges, as well as implant and tooth connected prosthesis still have not been evaluated.</p><p>Although, many studies report the success of these reconstructions using implants, a cumulative data about the various studies and the failure rate still remain unaddressed. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to analyze these data and to derive the cumulative survival rate of different implant-supported prosthesis.</p></sec><sec sec-type="materials|methods" id="sec1-2"><title>Materials and Methods</title><sec id="sec2-1"><title>Search strategy and study selection</title><p>A MEDLINE search from 1986 up to and including 2015 was conducted for publications in Journals using the following search terms and limited to human trials: “implants” and “survival,” “implants” and “survival rate,” “implants” and “survival analysis,” “implants” and “cohort studies,” “implants” and “case-control studies,” “implants” and “controlled clinical trials,” “implants” and “randomized-controlled clinical trials,” “implants” and “complications,” “implants” and “clinical,” “implants” and “longitudinal,” “implants” and “prospective” and “implants” and “retrospective.” Additional search strategies included the terms “single tooth,” “failure,” “peri-implantitis,” “fracture,” “complication,” “technical complication,” “biological complication,” “screw loosening” and “maintenance.”</p><p>Full-text articles were analyzed, and the related articles were also searched from the bibliography. Furthermore, following journals from 1986 to 2015: Australian Dental Journal, British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, Clinical Oral Implants Research, European Journal of Oral Sciences, International Dental Journal, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, Journal de Parodontologie, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Journal of Periodontology, Quintessence International, Swedish Dental Journal, Schweizerische Monatsschrift Zahnmedizin.</p></sec><sec id="sec2-2"><title>Inclusion criteria</title><p>This systematic review was based on prospective or retrospective cohort studies. The inclusion criteria for study selection were:</p><p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><p>The studies had a minimum of 5-year follow-up</p></list-item><list-item><p>The patients included had been examined clinically and/or radiographically at the follow-up visit</p></list-item><list-item><p>Publications that reported findings for both implant-supported FPDs and implant and tooth-supported FPDs were also included.</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec id="sec2-3"><title>Selection of studies</title><p>The articles obtained were first scrutinized by two reviewers, and any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Data were extracted individually by the reviewers. Any discrepancy in the records by the two reviewers was resolved by discussion and re-evaluation.</p></sec><sec id="sec2-4"><title>Excluded studies</title><p>The main reasons for exclusion were:</p><p><list list-type="bullet"><list-item><p>Mean observation period of less than 5 years</p></list-item><list-item><p>No mention of type of reconstructions or totally/partially edentulous patients</p></list-item><list-item><p>Surveys, case reports and reviews.</p></list-item></list></p></sec><sec id="sec2-5"><title>Data extraction</title><p>Of the 63 studies included, information on the survival and failure rate of the reconstructions was retrieved.</p><p>From the included studies, the number of failures for all of the three types of reconstructions was obtained and the total exposure time was calculated.</p></sec><sec id="sec2-6"><title>Statistical analysis</title><p>Failure rates were calculated by dividing the number of failures in the numerator by the total exposure time obtained in the denominator, which was calculated by taking the sum of:</p><p><list list-type="simple"><list-item><label>(1)</label><p>Exposure time of implants that survived the total follow-up time</p></list-item><list-item><label>(2)</label><p>Exposure time up to the failure of implants lost during the observation time</p></list-item><list-item><label>(3)</label><p>Exposure time up to the end of follow-up time for implants that did not complete the observation period due to any reason.</p></list-item></list></p><p>The total number of failures was considered to be Poisson distributed and Poisson’s regression with a logarithmic link function was used (Kirkwood and Sterne, 2003a). Standard errors were calculated to obtain 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the summary estimates of the failure rates.</p><p>To assess heterogeneity of the study-specific event rates, Cochran’s Q and I<xref rid="ref2" ref-type="bibr">2</xref> statistics was done and also the <italic>P</italic>-value was calculated. If the <italic>P</italic><0.05, indicating heterogeneity, random-effects Poisson’s regression was used to obtain a summary estimate of the failure rates. Survival proportions were calculated by the relationship between failure rate and survival function.</p><p>All analysis were done using MedCalc Statistical Software version 15.4.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec1-3"><title>Result</title><sec id="sec2-7"><title>Study characteristics</title><p>Nearly 63 studies included in this systematic review ranged from 1988 up to 2015. The articles on implant-supported SCs had 2004 as a median year of publication (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="T1" position="float"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p>Review of the studies included in the meta-analysis.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g001"></graphic></table-wrap><p>The majority of studies on implant-supported reconstructions (58 out of 73) were prospective in nature. The highest proportion of studies was found for the implant-supported SCs (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">Table 2</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="T2" position="float"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p>Failure and survival rate of implant supported SCs.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g002"></graphic></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec2-8"><title>Survival</title><p>Survival was defined as the prostheses remaining <italic>in situ</italic> over the observation period.</p></sec><sec id="sec2-9"><title>Implant-supported SC</title><p>Of 1833 SCs, 72 were lost, and the study specific survival varied between 89.29% and 100%. In meta-analysis, the annual failure rate was estimated at 0.684 (0.472-0.936) per 100 FPD years (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Graph 1</xref>) translating into the survival of implant-supported FPDs of 96.363 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Graph 2</xref>).</p><fig id="F1" position="float"><label>Graph 1</label><caption><p>Forest plot for single crown failure.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g003"></graphic></fig><table-wrap id="T3" position="float"><label>Table 3</label><caption><p>Failure and survival rate of implant-supported FPD.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g004"></graphic></table-wrap><fig id="F2" position="float"><label>Graph 2</label><caption><p>Forest plot for single crown survival.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g005"></graphic></fig></sec><sec id="sec2-10"><title>Implant-supported FPDs</title><p>About 26 studies provided data on the survival of solely implant-supported FPDs (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T1">Table 1</xref>). In meta-analysis, the annual failure rate was estimated at 0.881 (0.480-1.402) per 100 FPD years (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">Graph 3</xref>) translating into the survival of implant-supported FPDs of 94.525 (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T3">Table 3</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Graph 4</xref>).</p><fig id="F3" position="float"><label>Graph 3</label><caption><p>Forest plot for FPD failure.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g006"></graphic></fig><fig id="F4" position="float"><label>Graph 4</label><caption><p>Forest plot of implant-supported FPDs survival.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g007"></graphic></fig></sec><sec id="sec2-11"><title>Combined tooth-implant-supported FPDs</title><p>Fourteen studies provided results on the survival of combined tooth-implant-supported FPDs (<xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">Table 4</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="T4" position="float"><label>Table 4</label><caption><p>Failure and survival rate of implant- and tooth-supported prostheses.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g008"></graphic></table-wrap><p>In this meta-analysis, the annual failure rate (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F5">Graph 5</xref>) was estimated at 1.514 (0.79-2.45) per 100 FPD years, translating into the survival of tooth-implant-supported FPDs (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F6">Graph 6</xref>) of 91.27 (85.93-95.433).</p><fig id="F5" position="float"><label>Graph 5</label><caption><p>Forest plot of failure of implant tooth connected prostheses.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g009"></graphic></fig><fig id="F6" position="float"><label>Graph 6</label><caption><p>Forest plot of survival of implant tooth connected prostheses.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="JIOH-7-11-g010"></graphic></fig></sec><sec id="sec2-12"><title>Comparison of survival rates</title><p>After the total follow-up, the annual failure rates of different types of reconstructions ranged from 0 to 8.3, and the estimated survival rate ranged from 61.017% to 100%.</p><p>The relative failure rates of different types of prostheses, using implant-supported SCs as a reference, implant supported FPDs and the implant tooth connected prostheses showed more failure rates.</p><p>The highest survival was for implant-supported SCs 96.363% and implant-supported FPDs 94.525%. Lower survivals were reported for combined tooth-implant-supported FPDs 91.270%. (Tables <xref ref-type="table" rid="T2">2</xref>-<xref ref-type="table" rid="T4">4</xref> and Graphs <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">1</xref>-<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F6">6</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec sec-type="discussion" id="sec1-4"><title>Discussion</title><p>A comparative analysis of three different designs of implant-supported prostheses including SCs, FPD and tooth-implant-supported prostheses was done. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies abiding by the inclusion criteria were included in this meta-analysis to summarize the data about survival and failure rates of implant-supported reconstructions after minimum 5 years. Although 5 years have been considered in this study, some researchers may contradict that this time period is too short to gather the necessary information. However, dental implants have been in use for the reconstruction since not many years. Therefore, the time period considered was minimum of 5 years.</p><p>After the investigated period, higher failure rates were seen for implant-supported FPDs (0.881 per 100 FPD years) and combined tooth-implant supported FPDs (1.514 per 100 FPD years). Combined tooth-implant-supported FPDs had the highest annual failure rate (1.514). Statistically significant difference was observed in the failure rates. This result was contrary to the earlier studies reported by Pjeturson <italic>et al</italic>.<xref rid="ref9" ref-type="bibr">9</xref> The reason can be attributed to the better designs and treatment protocol being introduced over the recent years. The highest failures rates were seen with respect to combined tooth-implant-supported FPDs. This result had been reported earlier too in the literature.</p><p>This meta-analysis showing the failure and survival rates of implant-supported reconstructions of different types was based on the systematic reviews reported earlier. However, inclusion criteria were redefined, and the studies were selected till the most recent ones. Therefore, the newer concepts of fabricating the reconstructions have also been evaluated.</p><p>For instance, only studies with a clinical or radiological examination were included to avoid the potential subjective bias in failure description in studies based on patient questionnaire.</p><p>The limitations of this meta-analysis are that it was based on studies conducted in an institutional environment. Hence, the services provided in the private practice could not be evaluated. Furthermore, the data did not permit estimating annual failure rates separately for different time periods after insertion of the prostheses. Thus, it was not possible to assess if there was a substantial increase in the annual failure rate. Moreover, the prosthetic complications were not taken into consideration in this meta-analysis, therefore limiting our results to implant survival.</p><p>Moreover, the meta-analysis only included English-language publications. This could be problematic for two reasons: (a) Estimates is not complete if a significant number of studies published in other languages exist; (b) selection bias may occur if the results differ systematically from those of other languages.</p><sec id="sec2-13"><title>Research implications</title><p>It was deduced from this meta-analysis that still more longitudinal studies are required with more years of observation.</p></sec><sec id="sec2-14"><title>Clinical implications</title><p>According to the results of the present meta-analysis, planning of prosthetic rehabilitations should preferentially include implant-supported SCs or solely implant-supported FPDs. Only for reasons of anatomical constraints, failure of implants or patient preferences, and as a second option should FPDs supported by a combination of implants and teeth be chosen.</p></sec></sec><sec sec-type="conclusion" id="sec1-5"><title>Conclusion</title><p>Under the limitations of this meta-analysis, implant supported prostheses should be selected in the order of a single crown, followed by prostheses supported at the terminal ends by implants and lastly implant-tooth supported prostheses.</p></sec></body><back><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p><bold><italic>Conflicts of Interest: None</italic></bold></p></fn><fn fn-type="supported-by"><p><bold><italic>Source of Support: Nil</italic></bold></p></fn></fn-group><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="ref1"><label>1</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lekholm</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Gunne</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Henry</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name><name><surname>Higuchi</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Lindén</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Bergström</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name><etal></etal></person-group><article-title>Survival of the Brånemark implant in partially edentulous jaws: A 10-year prospective multicenter study</article-title><source>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</source><year>1999</year><volume>14</volume><issue>5</issue><fpage>639</fpage><lpage>45</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10531735</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref2"><label>2</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Weber</surname><given-names>HP</given-names></name><name><surname>Sukotjo</surname><given-names>C</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient?</article-title><source>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</source><year>2007</year><volume>22</volume><issue>Suppl</issue><fpage>140</fpage><lpage>72</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18437795</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref3"><label>3</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Calandriello</surname><given-names>R</given-names></name><name><surname>Tomatis</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Immediate occlusal loading of single lower molars using brånemark system® wide platform tiunite™ implants: A 5-year follow-up report of a prospective clinical multicenter study</article-title><source>Clin Implant Dent Relat Res</source><year>2011</year><volume>13</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>311</fpage><lpage>8</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19673926</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref4"><label>4</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Palmqvist</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Swartz</surname><given-names>B</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures 18 to 23 years after placement</article-title><source>Int J Prosthodont</source><year>1993</year><volume>6</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>279</fpage><lpage>85</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">8397697</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref5"><label>5</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Romeo</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Storelli</surname><given-names>S</given-names></name><name><surname>Casano</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name><name><surname>Scanferla</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Botticelli</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws: A 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial</article-title><source>Eur J Oral Implantol</source><year>2014</year><volume>7</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>371</fpage><lpage>81</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25422825</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref6"><label>6</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Romeo</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Lops</surname><given-names>D</given-names></name><name><surname>Margutti</surname><given-names>E</given-names></name><name><surname>Ghisolfi</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Chiapasco</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Vogel</surname><given-names>G</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: A 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system</article-title><source>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</source><year>2004</year><volume>19</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>247</fpage><lpage>59</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15101597</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref7"><label>7</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sailer</surname><given-names>I</given-names></name><name><surname>Pjetursson</surname><given-names>BE</given-names></name><name><surname>Zwahlen</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Hämmerle</surname><given-names>CH</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part II: Fixed dental prostheses</article-title><source>Clin Oral Implants Res</source><year>2007</year><volume>18</volume><issue>s3</issue><fpage>86</fpage><lpage>96</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17594373</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref8"><label>8</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Esposito</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Hirsch</surname><given-names>J</given-names></name><name><surname>Lekholm</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Thomsen</surname><given-names>P</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Differential diagnosis and treatment strategies for biologic complications and failing oral implants: A review of the literature</article-title><source>Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants</source><year>1999</year><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>473</fpage><lpage>90</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10453661</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref9"><label>9</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pjetursson</surname><given-names>BE</given-names></name><name><surname>Tan</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Lang</surname><given-names>NP</given-names></name><name><surname>Bra¨gger</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Egger</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Zwahlen</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years – I. Implant supported FPDs</article-title><source>Clin Oral Implants Res</source><year>2004a</year><volume>15</volume><fpage>625</fpage><lpage>42</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15533124</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref10"><label>10</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lang</surname><given-names>NP</given-names></name><name><surname>Pjetursson</surname><given-names>BE</given-names></name><name><surname>Tan</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Brägger</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Egger</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Zwahlen</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. II. Combined tooth – Implant-supported FPDs</article-title><source>Clin Oral Implants Res</source><year>2004</year><volume>15</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>643</fpage><lpage>53</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15533125</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="ref11"><label>11</label><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pjetursson</surname><given-names>BE</given-names></name><name><surname>Tan</surname><given-names>K</given-names></name><name><surname>Lang</surname><given-names>NP</given-names></name><name><surname>Brägger</surname><given-names>U</given-names></name><name><surname>Egger</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name><name><surname>Zwahlen</surname><given-names>M</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years</article-title><source>Clin Oral Implants Res</source><year>2004</year><volume>15</volume><issue>6</issue><fpage>625</fpage><lpage>42</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15533124</pub-id></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back></pmc></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Pmc/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000339 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000339 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Pmc
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé=
|texte=
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |