Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2019 May 3;14(5):e0216428.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216428. eCollection 2019.

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

László Márk Czumbel  1 , Beáta Kerémi  1 , Noémi Gede  2 , Alexandra Mikó  2 , Barbara Tóth  3   4 , Dezső Csupor  3   4 , Andrea Szabó  5 , Sándor Farkasdi  1 , Gábor Gerber  6 , Márta Balaskó  2 , Erika Pétervári  2 , Róbert Sepp  7 , Péter Hegyi  2 , Gábor Varga  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Sandblasting reduces dental implant failure rate but not marginal bone level loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis

László Márk Czumbel et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: Sandblasting is one of the oldest implant surface modifications to enhance osseointegration. Regarding its superiority over machined surface controversies still exist. Our objective was to compare implant failures (IF) and marginal bone level (MBL) changes between sandblasted and machined dental implants by a meta-analysis utilizing the available data. The PROSPERO registration number of the meta-analysis is CRD42018084190.

Methods: The systematic search was performed in Cochrane, Embase and Pubmed. Inclusion criteria included participants with neither systemic diseases, nor excessive alcohol consumption, nor heavy smoking. We calculated pooled Risk Ratio (RRs) with confidence intervals of 95% (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes (implant failure) and weighted mean difference (WMD) CIs of 95% for continuous outcomes (marginal bone level change). We applied the random effect model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation. I2 and chi2 tests were used to quantify statistical heterogeneity and gain probability-values, respectively.

Results: Literature search revealed 130 records without duplicates. Out of these, seven studies met the inclusion criteria and all were included in data synthesis, involving 362 sand-blasted and 360 machined implants. The results indicate that there is an 80% (RR = 0.2 95% CI:0.06-0.67; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.986) lower among sandblasted compared to machined implants after one year of use and 74% (RR = 0.26 95% CI:0.09-0.74; I2 = 0.0% p = 0.968) five years of use, respectively. In contrast, there is no significant difference in MBL (WMD:-0.10mm, 95% CI:-0.20, 0.01; p>0.05; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.560 and WMD:-0.01mm, 95% CI:-0.12, 0.09; p>0.05; I2 = 26.2%, p = 0.258) between the two implant surfaces after one and five years of use.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis reveals that sandblasting is superior over machined surface in implant failure but not in marginal bone level in healthy subjects. It also points out the need for further randomized clinical trials with large sample size for objective determination of the clinical benefits of certain implant surface modifications.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection process.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Risk of bias graph. Percentage of each risk of bias item across included studies.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Forest plot analysis of implant failure rate after one year.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Forest plot analysis of cumulative implant failure rate after two years.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Forest plot analysis of cumulative implant failure rate after 5/6 years.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Forest plot analysis of cumulative implant failure rate after 12/15 years.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Forest plot analysis of marginal bone level change after one year.
Fig 8
Fig 8. Forest plot analysis of marginal bone level change after 5 years.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Branemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindstrom J, Hallen O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scandinavian journal of plastic and reconstructive surgery Supplementum. 1977;16:1–132. Epub 1977/01/01. . - PubMed
    1. Gaviria L, Salcido JP, Guda T, Ong JL. Current trends in dental implants. Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2014;40(2):50–60. 10.5125/jkaoms.2014.40.2.50 PMC4028797. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reeta J, Gyanchand R, Surbhi G. Implant surface design: An Overview. Annals of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry. 2016;2(1):17–20.
    1. Vootla N, Reddy K. Osseointegration- Key Factors Affecting Its Success-An Overview. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2017;16(04):62–8. 10.9790/0853-1604056268 - DOI
    1. Barfeie A, Wilson J, Rees J. Implant surface characteristics and their effect on osseointegration. Br Dent J. 2015;218(5):E9–E. 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.171 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances