To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription.
Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.
Figure 1
Flowchart for the search process.
Figure 2
Risk-of-bias summary.
Figure 3
Forest plot showing implant stability values (implant stability quotient) measured at implant insertion. CI: Confidence interval. IV: Inverse variance. SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 4
Forest plot showing implant stability values (implant stability quotient) measured at week 3. CI: Confidence interval. IV: Inverse variance. SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 5
Forest plot showing implant stability values (implant stability quotient) measured at week 6. CI: Confidence interval. IV: Inverse variance. SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 6
Forest plot showing implant stability values (implant stability quotient) measured at week 8. CI: Confidence interval. IV: Inverse variance. SD: Standard deviation.
Figure 7
Forest plot showing implant survival and success rate. CI: Confidence interval. M-H: Mantel-Haenszel.
Abstract
Background
Modifying the implant surface via enhancing the wettability (hydrophilicity) improves osseointegration, reducing the healing period. In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate the stability and survival rates of implants with a hydrophilic surface compared with those with a sandblasted, acid-etched surface.
Types of Studies Reviewed
The included studies (randomized controlled trials) were identified through searches of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases without date of publication restrictions. Quality assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. For primary outcome, confidence intervals were set at 95%; weighted means across the studies were calculated using a fixed-effects model or risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals for secondary outcome.
Results
The authors included 5 randomized controlled trials (246 dental implants) in the systematic review, which compared a hydrophilic with conventional sandblasted, acid-etched implant surface. The implant stability (primary outcome) was measured at baseline and 3, 6, and 8 weeks, and implant survival rates were measured as a secondary outcome. Overall, compared with the control groups, no clinically significant differences in implant stability or survival rates were identified for the hydrophilic surface groups.
Conclusions and Practical Implications
The results did not show any clinically significant effect of a hydrophilic surface on improving implant stability or survival rates. However, these findings must be analyzed carefully owing to the limitations of this review, such as the small samples size and some differences among the included studies.
