RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Several anatomical and histological limitations can complicate implant placement, angulated implant positioning appeared to compensate these limitations. However several studies suggested a higher rate of marginal bone loss and implant failure regarding tilted implants in comparison with conventional implant. Therefore this umbrella review aims to summarize and analyze all the evidence available concerning marginal bone loss and implant failure between tilted and axial implants. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted, without any language restrictions and only systematic reviews with meta-analysis or meta-analysis studies were included. The outcomes assessed in this review were implant failure and marginal bone loss in mm. Relative risks (RRs) and the differences of the mean (MD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) regarding implant failure and marginal bone loss respectively. RESULTS: in total 8 studies were included, based on the short-term results, a non-significant mean difference (MD=0.00; 95% Cl; -0.01-0.02; p-value = 0.75) was recorded between tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch dentures, meanwhile a significant mean difference was recorded on a 3 years and long term follow-up reached (MD= 0.08 95% Cl = 0.05-0.11; p value<0.00001)) and (MD= 0.18; 95% Cl= 0.15-0.20; p value< 0.00001) respectively, and an insignificant difference was observed between tilted and axial implants regarding implant failure (RR=1.02; 95% Cl=0.85-1.23; p value= 0.81) Conclusion: this review based on high and moderated quality studies with low risk of bias demonstrated no significant outcome was observed between tilted implants supporting full-arch or fixed partial denture and axial implants regarding implant failure.
RESUMO
Alveolar ridge defects develop because of surgery, trauma, infection, or congenital malformations. Alveolar ridge defects can be resolved using an osseous replacement. The primary outcomes of osseous replacement are the maintenance of contour; the elimination of dead space, the reduction of postoperative infection; and the increase in bony and soft tissue healing. Recent research shows promising developments in dental bone grafts. This review presents the results of several clinical trials and provides updates on current alveolar bone grafting.In May 2023, we searched Clinicaltrials.gov for interventional clinical trials related to alveolar bone grafting. A total of 66 clinical trials were included using Boolean Operators AND, OR, NOT we used the "advanced search" option with the search terms [Alveolar Bone Grafting] OR [Ridge Preservation] OR [Dental Bone Grafting] OR [Ridge Augmentation]. Reviewed publications are summarized.28 out of the 66 trials were successfully completed. None of the trials had offered an invitation to enroll, and only one was terminated. Autograft was the most prevalent kind of grafting, at 28 out of 66, more than twice as prevalent as allograft, which ranked second at 12 out of 66.this study shows a lack of variety in location, low results provided, and low clinical trials regarding bone rejection. The focus of published trials was mainly on cleft palate rehabilitation using secondary alveolar bone grafting, and the usage of L-prf, rh-FGF-2, rhBMP2, and hyaluronic acid in association with alveolar bone grafting showed remarkable results concerning bone's osteoconduction, osteoinduction, and osteogenesis.
