Cochrane · intervention · CD003815
Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
46
current version
GRADE rated
2
No studies
0
Included studies
27
as reported
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 44 · 95.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 4.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | People who received osseointegrated root-formed oral/dental implants and were followed up for at least 1 year with the implant functionally loaded; patients with bone grafting, guided tissue regeneration or immediate placement in fresh extraction sockets were excluded | 1512 participants and 3230 implants; adults; 6 Italy, 5 New Zealand, 5 Sweden, 3 Netherlands, 2 Korea, 1 Turkey, 1 Germany, 1 Switzerland, 3 multicentre European |
| Intervention | Oral/dental implant treatment for replacing missing teeth with implants of a given material, shape and/or surface preparation | 38 different implant types compared, differing in surface preparation, shape, degree of titanium purity and titanium alloys (all commercially pure titanium or alloys) (n=38 types) |
| Comparison | Implants of a different material, shape and/or surface preparation (different implant type) | Different implant type (see comparisons) |
| Outcomes | Primary: implant failure (biological or mechanical). Secondary: radiographic marginal bone level change; occurrence of peri-implantitis | Implant failure (n=27); Marginal bone level change (n=NA); Peri-implantitis (n=4); Early implant failure (turned vs roughened) (n=7) |
| Study designs | All randomised controlled trials of oral/dental implants for replacing missing teeth comparing different implant types, with at least 1 year functional loading | Randomised controlled trials (parallel-group and split-mouth) |
| Timing | At least 1 year with the implant functionally loaded | 1 year; 3 years; 5 years; 10 years |
Search date: 2014-01. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE via OVID; EMBASE via OVID
Questions and results
Show all 4 versionsAstra TiO2-blasted titanium screws vs Branemark turned titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 to 5 years | MD -0.09 [-0.33, 0.15] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 to 5 years | RR 0.25 [0.03, 2.12] | 1 study · 66 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark Mark II standard titanium screws vs Branemark conical transmucosal titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 2 years | No failures in either group; risk ratio not estimable (Gatti 2002) | 1 study · 10 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark turned titanium screws vs IMZ TPS titanium cylinders
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 10 years | RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.26] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark Mark II turned titanium screws vs ITI TPS hollow titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 10 years | RR 1.64 [0.22, 12.01] | 2 studies · 99 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark Mark II turned titanium screws vs ITI TPS solid titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 3 years | RR 0.05 [0.05, 5.20] | 1 study · 56 participants | Ungraded |
IMZ TPS titanium cylinders vs ITI TPS hollow titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 10 years | RR 2.90 [0.12, 68.50] | 1 study · 59 participants | Ungraded |
IMZ TPS titanium cylinders vs ITI TPS solid titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 5 years | RR 3.00 [0.13, 69.52] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
ITI SLA titanium screws vs Southern blasted/etched titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 10 years | No failures at 10 years; risk ratio not estimable (Payne 2003, Table 4) | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal bone level change 1 to 10 years | MD -0.02 [-0.18, 0.14] | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
Steri-Oss acid-etched titanium screws vs Southern blasted/etched titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 10 years | RR 0.14 [0.02, 1.08] | 2 studies · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Turned (smoother) implant surfaces vs Roughened implant surfaces
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Early implant failure before prosthetic loading · turned vs roughened surfaces | RR 2.79 [0.87, 8.90] 50 per 1000 vs 140 per 1000 | 7 studies · 404 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Peri-implantitis 3 years · turned vs roughened surfaces | RR 0.80 [0.67, 0.96] 50 per 1000 vs 40 per 1000 | 4 studies · 144 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Branemark Mark IV TiUnite titanium screws vs Southern regular titanium screws
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | RR 0.57 [0.20, 1.63] | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark Mark III turned titanium implants vs Branemark Mark III TiUnite oxidised implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | No failures (Froberg 2006, Table 1); risk ratio not estimable | 1 study · 15 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark Mark IV turned titanium implants vs Branemark Mark IV TiUnite oxidised implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | RR 0.33 [0.82, 7.32] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal bone level change 1 to 3 years | MD 0.11 [-0.38, 0.60] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
ITI SLA cylindrical implants vs ITI SLA tapered implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | No failures (Lang 2007, Table 2); risk ratio not estimable | 1 study · 208 participants | Ungraded |
Astra cylindrical turned surface implants vs Astra cylindrical TiO2-blasted surface implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 5 years | Primary pairwise data unusable (implant numbers per surface not disclosed); one turned implant failed early. Data used only for the turned-vs-roughened secondary analysis (Wennstrom 2004) | 1 study · 51 participants | Ungraded |
ITI SLA standard (regular neck) implants vs ITI SLActive implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | RR 5.00 [0.26, 98.00] | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
MegaGen EZ Plus blasted standard implants vs MegaGen EZ Plus calcium-incorporated (Xpeed) implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.04 [-0.13, 0.21] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 year | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Esposito 2012) | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
SPI Element sand-blasted acid-etched standard implants vs SPI Element SurfLink-modified implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.27 [-0.01, 0.55] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 year | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Esposito 2013a) | 1 study · 23 participants | Ungraded |
Astra TiO2-blast cylindrical implants vs Astra TiO2-blast conical (tapered, microthreaded) implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 3 years | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Lee 2007) | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Implantium microthreads at the coronal top vs Implantium microthreads 0.5 mm below the top
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Song 2009) | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelActive internal connection implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.30 [-0.17, 0.77] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 to 3 years | RR 1.06 [0.25, 4.51] | 1 study · 113 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelReplace implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 3 years | RR 0.67 [0.17, 2.67] | 1 study · 106 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.00 [-0.41, 0.41] | 1 study · 88 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive internal connection implants vs NobelReplace implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.30 [-0.17, 0.77] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 to 3 years | RR 0.90 [0.25, 3.15] | 1 study · 106 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive internal connection implants vs Nobel Speedy Groovy external connection implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Pozzi 2014) | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD -0.59 [-0.74, -0.44] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
WINSIX cylindrical implants vs WINSIX tapered implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 to 2 years | RR 2.00 [0.38, 10.58] | 1 study · 132 participants | Ungraded |
ITI SLActive titanium grade 4 implants vs ITI SLActive titanium-13zirconium (Roxolid) implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | RR 2.00 [0.18, 21.66] | 1 study · 178 participants | Ungraded |
Ankylos Plus (Dentsply) implants vs Seven (Sweden & Martina) implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.03 [-0.29, 0.35] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 year | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Crespi 2009) | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Astra TiO2-blast titanium implants vs ITI SLA titanium implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 5 years | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Akoglu 2011) | 1 study | Ungraded |
Astra TiO2-blast titanium implants vs SwissPlus (Zimmer) cylindrical implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 5 years | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Akoglu 2011) | 1 study | Ungraded |
ITI SLA titanium implants vs SwissPlus (Zimmer) cylindrical implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 5 years | No failures at 5 years; risk ratio not estimable (Akoglu 2011) | 1 study | Ungraded |
NobelReplace Select Tapered implants vs NobelReplace Groovy implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal bone level change 1 year | MD 0.29 [-0.06, 0.64] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Implant failure 1 year | RR 3.00 [0.13, 70.92] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Southern regular implants vs Neoss turned implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | RR 3.25 [0.15, 72.36] | 1 study · 23 participants | Ungraded |
Southern wide implants vs Neoss turned implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | No failures; risk ratio not estimable (Alsabeeha 2011) | 1 study | Ungraded |
Southern regular implants vs Southern wide implants
Population: Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant failure 1 year | RR 3.25 [0.15, 72.36] | 1 study · 23 participants | Ungraded |