section name header

Evidence summaries

Interventions for Replacing Missing Teeth: Different Types of Dental Implants

Implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces may be less prone to lose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces, but here is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. Level of evidence: "C"

A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 27 studies with a total of 1512 subjects. 38 different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 10 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. The only observed statistically significant difference for the primary objective regarded more peri-implant bone loss at Nobel Speedy Groovy implants when compared with NobelActive implants (MD -0.59 mm; 95% CI -0.74 to -0.44, different implant shapes). The only observed statistically significant difference for the secondary objective was that implants with turned (smoother) surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk to be affected by peri-implantitis than implants with rough surfaces three years after loading (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96). There was a tendency for implants with turned surfaces to fail early more often than implants with roughened surfaces.

    References

    • Esposito M, Ardebili Y, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(7):CD003815. [PubMed]

Primary/Secondary Keywords