Systematic review of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following oral rehabilitation on dental implants with a tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design
Background: Dental implants are available in different shapes.
Aims: This systematic review aims to address whether tapered compared to non‐tapered implants demonstrate similar clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. The review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) format.
Materials & Methods: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE through PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compare tapered versus non‐tapered implants with at least 10 treated participants and a minimum mean follow‐up time of 3 years. There were no restrictions to a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider risk of bias.
Results: We identified 18 different RCTs, of which three reported outcomes at 3 years or greater. The three trials described the results of 245 participants with 388 implants at 3 years, from the initially 306 participants with 494 implants at baseline. The three trials compared, respectively, two, two, and three different commercially available implant brands and reported only clinically insignificant differences. We judged all three trials to be at moderate risk of bias. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta‐analyses.
Discussion and conclusion: Appropriate professional judgment in clinical decision making must include a comprehensive diagnosis of the patient's jawbone quality and quantity and consideration of osteotomy protocol in accordance with the patient's treatment preferences, where the shape of the dental implant is only one contributory factor.