ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2024
Long-term survival of Astra Tech vs Straumann dental implants and restorations.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
designThis randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared the survival and complications rates between two well-established implant systems, namely AST (OsseoSpeed TX 3.0-5.0 S, TX 4.5; Astra Tech Implant System, Dentsply Sirona) and STM (Straumann Bone Level Implants 3.3, 4.1, 4.8 mm, SLA active; Straumann AG), supporting fixed restorations, over a 10-year follow-up period. CASE SELECTION: Sixty-four healthy patients with good oral hygiene participated in this study at the Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, Switzerland. A total of 98 implants were placed in these patients, who were randomly assigned to either the AST or the STM groups. Subsequently, patients received implant-supported fixed restorations and were followed up for 10 years. The assessments were performed at the implant insertion stage after the final implant restoration was fitted (baseline), and then at 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 years post-baseline assessment. The outcome measures included implant survival, marginal bone level changes, prosthesis (supra-structure) complications, and clinical periodontal measures. DATA ANALYSIS: Data analysis was performed with SAS 9.4 software. Data were recorded at both the patient and implant levels. A range of statistical tests such as Wilcoxon-signed-rank, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, F-tests, and Chi-squares were used. Linear models and linear mixed models were applied at the patient and implant levels, respectively.
resultsThe study reported survival rates of 89.7% for AST and 96.8% for STM, after 10 years. The AST implants showed a higher incidence of prosthesis complications, such as chipping, screw loosening and fracture, abutment fracture, and implant crown loss. Biological complications, including peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, were more prevalent in the STM group.
conclusionsOverall, the study suggests that both implant systems have equally high survival rates and stable marginal bone levels. Therefore, both systems are considered viable options for supporting fixed restorations at restoring missing teeth in the maxilla and mandible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.