IADR Abstract Archives
Cement-Retained Implant Supported Restorations and Peri-Implant Inflammation: a Systematic Review.
Objectives: A systematic review was conducted to assess the literature to ascertain whether or not a body of evidence exists relating to the impact of the choice of luting cement for fixed dental implant restorations on subsequent development of peri-implant inflammation.
Methods: The study protocol was registered (PROSPERO- CRD42018098966).
Selection Criteria: Search included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English language.
Search Strategy: Electronic Data bases (MEDLINE via OvidSp, Embase and Google Scholar). OpenGrey and hand-searching of journals and the references of included articles was also carried out.
Data collection and analysis: Title and abstract screening and full text screening were independently performed by two review authors (MR and GM). Disagreements were mitigated with a third reviewer (BA).
Results: Following a search strategy as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review guidelines (PRISMA), 453 articles were identified after removal of duplicates. After title and abstract screening, 8 articles remained for full text screening. None of those eight studies were eligible to meet the inclusion criteria and they were excluded with reasons as follows: 3 studies did not specify the type of luting cements used, 2 studies had irrelevant intervention/irrelevant outcome and 3 studies assessed one cement only; Temp-bond luting cement without comparator/s.
Conclusions: The literature lacks evidence on incidence of peri-implantitis around cement-retained implant restorations due to particular luting cement used. Further high quality RCTs are needed with tight controls over variables and confounding factors that allow comparison between cement types in order to address the question of this review. To our knowledge, no similar systematic reviews have been published that depict the lack of evidence available in this area.
Methods: The study protocol was registered (PROSPERO- CRD42018098966).
Selection Criteria: Search included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in English language.
Search Strategy: Electronic Data bases (MEDLINE via OvidSp, Embase and Google Scholar). OpenGrey and hand-searching of journals and the references of included articles was also carried out.
Data collection and analysis: Title and abstract screening and full text screening were independently performed by two review authors (MR and GM). Disagreements were mitigated with a third reviewer (BA).
Results: Following a search strategy as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review guidelines (PRISMA), 453 articles were identified after removal of duplicates. After title and abstract screening, 8 articles remained for full text screening. None of those eight studies were eligible to meet the inclusion criteria and they were excluded with reasons as follows: 3 studies did not specify the type of luting cements used, 2 studies had irrelevant intervention/irrelevant outcome and 3 studies assessed one cement only; Temp-bond luting cement without comparator/s.
Conclusions: The literature lacks evidence on incidence of peri-implantitis around cement-retained implant restorations due to particular luting cement used. Further high quality RCTs are needed with tight controls over variables and confounding factors that allow comparison between cement types in order to address the question of this review. To our knowledge, no similar systematic reviews have been published that depict the lack of evidence available in this area.