PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12535491

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated oral implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediate and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times one year after loading. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials and 55 oral implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished RCTs. The last electronic search was conducted on 8 May 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow-up of one year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants loaded at different times. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomization and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Only three RCTs were identified and two trials including 68 patients in total were suitable for inclusion in this review. Implants have been either immediately loaded after insertion (two to three days), early loaded (six weeks) or conventionally loaded (three to eight months) in edentulous mandibles of adequate bone quality and shape. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone loss on intra-oral radiographs. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: While it is possible to successfully load oral implants immediately after their placement in mandibles of adequate bone density and height of carefully selected patients, it is yet unknown how predictable this approach is. More well designed RCTs are needed to understand how predictable immediate and early loading are. Such trials should be simply designed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). It is suggested that priority should be given to trials assessing the effectiveness of immediately loaded implants rather than early loaded ones.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Esposito, H V Worthington, P Coulthard. 2003. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd003878

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Is there a causal relationship between resistin levels and bone mineral density, fracture occurrence? A mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: In a great many of observational studies, whether there is a relevance of resistin levels on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture occurrence has been inconsistently reported, and the causality is unclear. METHODS: We aim to assess the resistin levels on BMD and fracture occurrence within a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. Exposure and outcome data were derived from the Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) Open genome wide association studies (GWAS) database. Screening of instrumental variables (IVs) was performed subject to conditions of relevance, exclusivity, and independence. Inverse variance weighting (IVW) was our primary method for MR analysis based on harmonized data. Weighted median and MR-Egger were chosen to evaluate the robustness of the results of IVW. Simultaneously, heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy were also assessed and the direction of potential causality was detected by MR Steiger. Multivariable MR (MVMR) analysis was used to identify whether confounding factors affected the reliability of the results. RESULTS: After Bonferroni correction, the results showed a suggestively positive causality between resistin levels and total body BMD (TB-BMD) in European populations over the age of 60 [β(95%CI): 0.093(0.021, 0.165), P = 0.011]. The weighted median [β(95%CI): 0.111(0.067, 0.213), P = 0.035] and MR-Egger [β(95%CI): 0.162(0.025, 0.2983), P = 0.040] results demonstrate the robustness of the IVW results. No presence of pleiotropy or heterogeneity was detected between them. MR Steiger supports the causal inference result and MVMR suggests its direct effect. CONCLUSIONS: In European population older than 60 years, genetically predicted higher levels of resistin were associated with higher TB-BMD. A significant causality between resistin levels on BMD at different sites, fracture in certain parts of the body, and BMD in four different age groups between 0-60 years of age was not found in our study.

Bone Density↗

Adjusting power for a baseline covariate in linear models.

The analysis of covariance provides a common approach to adjusting for a baseline covariate in medical research. With Gaussian errors, adding random covariates does not change either the theory or the computations of general linear model data analysis. However, adding random covariates does change the theory and computation of power analysis. Many data analysts fail to fully account for this complication in planning a study. We present our results in five parts. (i) A review of published results helps document the importance of the problem and the limitations of available methods. (ii) A taxonomy for general linear multivariate models and hypotheses allows identifying a particular problem. (iii) We describe how random covariates introduce the need to consider quantiles and conditional values of power. (iv) We provide new exact and approximate methods for power analysis of a range of multivariate models with a Gaussian baseline covariate, for both small and large samples. The new results apply to the Hotelling-Lawley test and the four tests in the "univariate" approach to repeated measures (unadjusted, Huynh-Feldt, Geisser-Greenhouse, Box). The techniques allow rapid calculation and an interactive, graphical approach to sample size choice. (v) Calculating power for a clinical trial of a treatment for increasing bone density illustrates the new methods. We particularly recommend using quantile power with a new Satterthwaite-style approximation.

Bone Density↗