To the top

Page Manager: Webmaster
Last update: 9/11/2012 3:13 PM

Tell a friend about this page
Print version

Turned versus anodised de… - University of Gothenburg, Sweden Till startsida
To content Read more about how we use cookies on

Contact form


Note! If you want an answer on a question you must specify your email address

Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta-analysis

Journal article
Authors B. R. Chrcanovic
Tomas Albrektsson
A. Wennerberg
Published in Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
Volume 43
Issue 9
Pages 716-728
ISSN 0305-182X
Publication year 2016
Published at Institute of Clinical Sciences, Department of Biomaterials
Pages 716-728
Language en
Keywords anodised implants, dental implants, implant failure rate, marginal bone loss, meta-analysis, turned implants
Subject categories Surgery, Otorhinolaryngology, Dentistry


The aim of this meta-analysis was to test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL)and post-operative infection for patients being rehabilitated by turned versus anodised-surface implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference. An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in November 2015. Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomised or not. Thirty-eight publications were included. The results suggest a risk ratio of 2·82 (95% CI 1·95–4·06, P < 0·00001) for failure of turned implants, when compared to anodised-surface implants. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when only the studies inserting implants in maxillae or mandibles were pooled. There were no statistically significant effects of turned implants on the MBL (mean difference-MD 0·02, 95%CI −0·16–0·20; P = 0·82) in comparison to anodised implants. The results of a meta-regression considering the follow-up period as a covariate suggested an increase of the MD with the increase in the follow-up time (MD increase 0·012 mm year−1), however, without a statistical significance (P = 0·813). Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta-analysis for the outcome ‘post-operative infection’ was not performed. The results have to be interpreted with caution due to the presence of several confounding factors in the included studies. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Page Manager: Webmaster|Last update: 9/11/2012

The University of Gothenburg uses cookies to provide you with the best possible user experience. By continuing on this website, you approve of our use of cookies.  What are cookies?