title: Intervention for replacing missing teeth: Different types of implants - evidence summary of updated Cochrane review.
abstract: Around 1300 different types of dental implants are available worldwide and the implant manufacturers are resorting to aggressive marketing strategies; claiming their implants to provide a superior outcome. The clinician is left with a constant dilemma on which implant to choose for better clinical outcome and welfare of the patient. Moreover, in India, economical consideration is a concern too. The dentist has to select an implant that provides a good result and is economical. Cochrane systematic reviews provide the gold standard evidence for intervention, diagnosis, etc., and follow a strict quality control. A Cochrane systematic review was done to shed light on whether the different implant surface modifications, shapes or materials significantly influence clinical outcomes. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) till January 17, 2014 were searched and out of the 81 trials, only 27 met the inclusion criteria. This evidence summary from the review concludes that based on the available literature; there is no evidence of any one type of implant being superior to another. There is weak evidence showing roughened dental implants are more prone to bone loss due to periimplantitis. This review indicated that there is a need for well-designed RCTs, with long-term follow-up and low bias. Moreover, none of the included studies was from India, which also points out the need for improving the quality of RCTs conducted in India.
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
authors.forename: Balendra Pratap
authors.initials: BP
authors.lastname: Singh
authors.affiliation: Department of Prosthodontics, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
authors.forename: Hemant
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Jivanani
keywords: Cochrane database of systematic review; level of evidence; meta-analysis; prosthodontics; randomized controlled trial; systematic review