Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41827403

Effect of Magnesium-Modified Titanium Implants on Osseointegration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Preclinical Studies.

Alenezi Ali, Alasmari Dhafer · Journal of clinical medicine · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/jcm15051987

Findings

Population Animal models (rabbits and rats), Ti implants in tibia or femur

2 findings

Ti implants coated with or incorporating magnesium (Mg)Ti implants without Mg (same base surface, uncoated or non-Mg coated)Bone-to-implant contact (BIC, %)
Healing periods 2 to 24 weeks, pooled across timepoints · Animal experiments; rabbit and rat long bones, unloaded implants
MD 13.20 [7.29, 19.11]
GRADE not reported
10 studies · 246 participants
Ti implants coated with or incorporating magnesium (Mg)Ti implants without Mg (same base surface, uncoated or non-Mg coated)Bone area (BA, %)
Healing periods 2 to 24 weeks, pooled across timepoints · Animal experiments; rabbit and rat long bones, unloaded implants
MD 2.51 [-2.80, 7.81]
GRADE not reported
8 studies · 230 participants

Included primary studies 11

Open in Studies
StudyYearAlso included byOutcomes it informs hereTrial data
Cho 2010
Bone response of Mg ion-implanted clinical implants with the plasma source ion implantation method.
PMID:20384707
2010this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Galli 2015
Osteoconductive Potential of Mesoporous Titania Implant Surfaces Loaded with Magnesium: An Experimental Study in the Rabbit.
PMID:25178845
2015this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Galli 2017
Magnesium release from mesoporous carriers on endosseus implants does not influence bone maturation at 6 weeks in rabbit bone.
PMID:27405685
2017this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Li 2014
The effect of magnesium-incorporated hydroxyapatite coating on titanium implant fixation in ovariectomized rats.
PMID:24451871
2014this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Okuzu 2017
Strontium and magnesium ions released from bioactive titanium metal promote early bone bonding in a rabbit implant model.
PMID:28919512
2017this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %)not extracted yet
Park 2012
Osseointegration of commercial microstructured titanium implants incorporating magnesium: a histomorphometric study in rabbit cancellous…
PMID:21435010
2012this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Shen 2019
Fabrication of magnesium/zinc-metal organic framework on titanium implants to inhibit bacterial infection and promote bone regeneration.
PMID:31100479
2019this review onlynot statednot extracted yet
Tao 2016
A comparative study of zinc, magnesium, strontium-incorporated hydroxyapatite-coated titanium implants for osseointegration of osteopenic…
PMID:26952418
2016this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Yang 2019
Dual-Purpose Magnesium-Incorporated Titanium Nanotubes for Combating Bacterial Infection and Ameliorating Osteolysis to Realize Better…
PMID:33464078
2019this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %)not extracted yet
Zhang 2015
Characterization and In Vivo Evaluation of Trace Element-Loaded Implant Surfaces in Ovariectomized Rats.
PMID:26394347
2015this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet
Zhao 2013
Effects of magnesium-substituted nanohydroxyapatite coating on implant osseointegration.
PMID:22145854
2013this review onlyBone-to-implant contact (BIC, %); Bone area (BA, %)not extracted yet

Review question

ElementPlanned (methods)Found (results)
PopulationAnimal modelsRabbit and rat models (n=11 studies), tibia and femur
InterventionTi implants coated or incorporated with MgMg ion implantation, Mg-substituted HA coatings, Mg-loaded mesoporous titania, Mg-incorporated nanotubes, Mg/Zn MOF (n=11)
ComparisonTi implants without Mg incorporation or coatingUnmodified Ti, HA-coated, nanotube-modified or mesoporous titania control implants (n=11)
OutcomesBone formation around implants (BIC, BA, BV/TV)BIC (n=10 in meta-analysis); BA (n=8 in meta-analysis); BV/TV (n=2 studies)
Study designsAnimal studies in English published from 2005; quantitative bone outcomesPreclinical animal studies (n=11)
TimingNot specifiedHealing 2 to 24 weeks

AMSTAR 2 items

Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.

ItemExtractor AExtractor BAgree
1Research question includes PICO componentsYesYesyes
2Protocol established before the reviewcriticalNoNoyes
3Choice of study designs explainedNoNoyes
4Comprehensive literature searchcriticalNoNoyes
5Study selection in duplicateYesYesyes
6Data extraction in duplicateNoNoyes
7List of excluded studies with reasonscriticalNoNoyes
8Included studies described in detailPartial YesPartial Yesyes
9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycriticalRCT: Yes · NRSI: N/ANRSI: N/A · RCT: Yesno
10Funding of included studies reportedNoNoyes
11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscriticalRCT: No · NRSI: N/ANRSI: N/A · RCT: Nono
12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled resultsNoNoyes
13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcriticalNoNoyes
14Heterogeneity explainedYesYesyes
15Publication bias investigatedcriticalNoNoyes
16Conflicts of interest reportedYesYesyes
OverallCritically LowCritically Lowyes