Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJokstad, Asbjørn
dc.contributor.authorGaneles, Jeffrey
dc.date.accessioned2019-01-16T13:53:45Z
dc.date.available2019-01-16T13:53:45Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-17
dc.description.abstract<p><i>Background</i>: Dental implants are available in different shapes.</p> <p><i>Aims</i>: 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.</p> <p><i>Materials & Methods</i>: 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.</p> <p><i>Results</i>: 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.</p> <p><i>Discussion and conclusion</i>: 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.</p>en_US
dc.descriptionSource at <a href=https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13128> https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13128</a>.en_US
dc.identifier.citationJokstad, A. & Ganeles, J. (2018). Systematic review of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following oral rehabilitation on dental implants with a tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design. <i>Clinical Oral Implants Research</i>, 29, 41-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13128en_US
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161
dc.identifier.issn1600-0501
dc.identifier.otherFRIDAID 1551298
dc.identifier.other10.1111/clr.13128
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10037/14463
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherWileyen_US
dc.relation.journalClinical Oral Implants Research
dc.relation.urihttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/clr.13128
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccessen_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medical disciplines: 700::Clinical dentistry disciplines: 830en_US
dc.subjectVDP::Medisinske Fag: 700::Klinisk odontologiske fag: 830en_US
dc.subjectclinical decision makingen_US
dc.subjecthumans osteotomyen_US
dc.subjectrandomized controlled trialsen_US
dc.titleSystematic review of clinical and patient-reported outcomes following oral rehabilitation on dental implants with a tapered compared to a non-tapered implant designen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typeTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US


File(s) in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record