The Application of Beta-Tricalcium Phosphate in Implant Dentistry: A Systematic Evaluation of Clinical Studies.

Elisabet Roca-Millan,Álvaro Jiménez-Guerra,Eugenio Velasco-Ortega,José López-López,Antonio Marí-Roig,Loreto Monsalve-Guil,Enric Jané-Salas,Iván Ortiz-García

doi:10.3390/ma15020655

Elisabet Roca-Millan, Álvaro Jiménez-Guerra + Show 6 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15020655

Copy DOI

Abstract

The demand for synthetic graft materials in implant dentistry is rising. This systematic review aims to evaluate the survival rate of dental implants placed simultaneously with bone regeneration procedures using the material β-tricalcium phosphate, one of the most promising synthetic graft materials. The electronic search was conducted in PubMed, Scielo, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Five randomized clinical trials, one non-randomized controlled clinical trial and four observational studies without control group were include. Implant survival rate and other clinical, radiographic, and histological parameters did not differ from those of implants placed simultaneously with another type of graft material, or placed in blood clots or natural alveolar ridges. Based on the available literature, β-tricalcium phosphate seems to be a promising graft material in implant dentistry. Nevertheless, more randomized clinical trials, with long follow-up periods, preoperative and postoperative CBCT, and histological analysis, are necessary to assess its long-term behavior.

Highlights

Over the last decades, the increasing demand for implant procedures has promoted the development of multiple bone substitutes from different sources [1,2]
Primary question: Is the survival rate of dental implants placed simultaneously with bone regeneration procedures using β-tricalcium phosphate (β-TCP) similar to the same procedures using another type of graft material, or similar to dental implants placed without graft material?
Secondary Question: Are other clinical, radiographic or histologic parameters similar to the same procedures using another type of graft material, or similar to dental implants placed without using graft material?

Summary

Introduction

The increasing demand for implant procedures has promoted the development of multiple bone substitutes from different sources [1,2]. The increase in morbidity, risk of complications, longer surgical time, and its limited availability often lead to other graft materials being chosen, such as xenografts, allografts, or synthetic materials [4,5,6,7,8]. Allografts come from living or cadaveric human donors, are available in various forms, and are histocompatible. Due to their processing, they do not have osteogenic capacity, and have lower osteoinductive properties. There can be residual immunological risks and a minimal risk of disease transmission [9,10,11]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion