Clinical effect evaluation of anodized and sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched implants within 10 years: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To systematically evaluate the clinical effect of anodized implants and sandblasted, large-grit, acid-etched (SLA) implants in the recent 10 years, so as to provide a reference for the selection and evaluation of implants. Methods: The data from Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang Data database from January 2010 to April 2020 were searched, to find clinical studies on anodized and SLA implants. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, literature was strictly screened, and data was extracted. Included studies were evaluated by using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) and were analyzed by Stata14.0. The outcome of interest was cumulative survival rate (CSR) and marginal bone loss (MBL). Heterogeneity and publication bias among included literature was evaluated comprehensively. Results: A total of 22 articles, including 6 276 anodized implants, were collected for the analysis of anodized implants. Meta-analysis of proportions showed that anodized implants CSR were 98% (95%CI: 97%-98%, P<0.05) in total, at 5 years were 98% (95%CI: 98%-99%, P<0.05), and at 10 years were 97% (95%CI: 96%-98%, P<0.05). MBL change was 1.02 mm (95%CI: 0.69-1.34, P<0.05) in total. A total of 17 articles, including 4 567 SLA implants, were collected for the analysis of SLA implants. Meta-analysis of proportions showed that SLA implants CSR were 99% (95%CI: 98%-100%, P<0.05) in total, 99% at 5 years (95%CI: 98%-100%, P<0.05), and 99% at 10 years (95%CI: 97%-100%, P<0.05). MBL change was 0.69 mm (95%CI: 0.44-0.95, P<0.05) in total. The results of the above two studies were tested for bias (P>0.05), indicating no significant publication bias. Conclusions: Meta-analysis suggested that SLA implants have higher CSR and lower MBL than anodized implants.