ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2014
Radiotherapy associated with higher rates of dental implant loss.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prosthetic rehabilitation of a patient after a partial mandibulectomy.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline via PubMed and EMBASE; no restrictions on language, published before February 1st 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies reporting outcomes from irradiated and non-irradiated patients were eligible for inclusion as were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) assessing irradiated patients submitted to different implant-based treatment protocols. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts was by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion, consensus, or failing this by consultation with a third reviewer. Data extraction was in duplicate and attempts were made to contact authors for missing data. Risk of bias was assessed using adapted versions of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool (for RCTs and CCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies.
resultsFifteen trials with 10,150 implants were included with 1,689 (14.3%) placed in irradiated mouths. There were 13 case series and two RCTs. three of the studies were on hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy. Neither of the RCTs was rated as low risk of bias. Mean survival rates ranged from 46.3% to 98% with pooled estimates showing that implant failure was statistically significantly higher in irradiated patients compared to patients who had not undergone radiotherapy (an increase of 174%) with a risk ratio of 2.74 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 1.86, 4.05; p<0.00001). In maxillary sites, the risk ratio was 5.96 (95% CI:2.71, 13.12;p<0.00001) with the risk of loss increasing to 496%. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy did not reduce the risk of implant failure showing a risk ratio of 1.28 (95% CI:0.19, 8.82).
conclusionsIrradiation of the head was linked to increased failure rate of implants compared to failure rates in patients who had not undergone radiotherapy. The failure rate was higher in the maxilla and HBO therapy did not improve implant survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24763175What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.