ReviewCureus2026
Long-Term Peri-Implant Outcomes of Smoother/Hybrid Versus Moderately Rough Titanium Implant Surfaces: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Roughened titanium implant surfaces can improve osseointegration, whereas smoother or hybrid coronal surfaces may limit biofilm retention if exposed. Whether either strategy improves long-term peri-implant outcomes remains uncertain. This update compared smoother, minimally rough, or hybrid implant surfaces with moderately rough or rougher surfaces after at least 24 months of follow-up. A 2024 systematic review was used as the baseline evidence set. PubMed was updated from January 1, 2024, through August 7, 2026, with forward and backward citation searching. Randomized clinical reports in adults were eligible when the surface contrast was not inseparable from a different whole implant system or collar macrodesign. The primary outcome was marginal bone-level change (MBL); probing depth (PPD) and implant failure were secondary outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). RevMan 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK)-compatible inverse-variance random-effects models were used for continuous outcomes, and a Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect risk ratio was used for sparse implant-failure events. Ten reports involving 480 enrolled participants and 1,219 implants met the review criteria. Eight reports contributed to the MBL meta-analysis (671 analysis units). There was no evidence of a difference between smoother/hybrid and rougher surfaces (mean difference (MD) 0.07 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12 to 0.27; p=0.46; I²=84%). Four reports contributed PPD data (MD -0.36 mm, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.21; p=0.22; I²=72%). Implant failure was uncommon (12/381 versus 6/392 implants); the risk ratio was imprecise and not statistically significant (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 5.31; p=0.11; I²=0%). Excluding studies at high risk of bias did not materially alter the MBL conclusion. Current randomized evidence does not establish long-term clinical superiority of smoother/hybrid or rougher titanium implant surfaces. Confidence is very low because of risk of bias, substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity, sparse failures, and unresolved clustering in multi-implant and split-mouth trials. Surface selection should therefore be individualized and should not rely on roughness alone.
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.