A 10-year retrospective analysis of radiographic bone-level changes of implants supporting single-unit crowns in periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients

AIM: To compare the 10-year peri-implant bone loss (BL) rate in periodontally compromised (PCP) and periodontally healthy patients (PHP) around two different implant systems supporting single-unit crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, controlled study, the mean BL (mBL) rate around dental implants placed in four groups of 20 non-smokers was evaluated after a follow-up of 10 years. Two groups of patients treated for periodontitis (PCP) and two groups of PHP were created. For each category (PCP and PHP), two different types of implant had been selected. The mBL was calculated by subtracting the radiographic bone levels at the time of crown cementation from the bone levels at the 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: The mean age, mean full-mouth plaque and full-mouth bleeding scores and implant location were similar between the four groups. Implant survival rates ranged between 85% and 95%, without statistically significant differences (P>0.05) between groups. For both implant systems, PCP showed statistically significantly higher mBL rates and number of sites with BL> or =3 mm compared with PHP (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: After 10 years, implants in PCP yielded lower survival rates and higher mean marginal BL rates compared with those of implants placed in PHP. These results were independent of the implant system used or the healing modality applied.

Inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

To assess the effects of inpatient rehabilitation specifically designed for geriatric patients compared with usual care on functional status, admissions to nursing homes, and mortality.

Efficacy of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments in non-inferiority trials: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background There is concern that non-inferiority trials might be deliberately designed to conceal that a new treatment is less effective than a standard treatment. In order to test this hypothesis we performed a meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials to assess the average effect of experimental treatments compared with standard treatments. Methods One hundred and seventy non-inferiority treatment trials published in 121 core clinical journals were included. The trials were identified through a search of PubMed (1991 to 20 February 2009). Combined relative risk (RR) from meta-analysis comparing experimental with standard treatments was the main outcome measure. Results The 170 trials contributed a total of 175 independent comparisons of experimental with standard treatments. The combined RR for all 175 comparisons was 0.994 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.978–1.010] using a random-effects model and 1.002 (95% CI 0.996–1.008) using a fixed-effects model. Of the 175 comparisons, experimental treatment was considered to be non-inferior in 130 (74%). The combined RR for these 130 comparisons was 0.995 (95% CI 0.983–1.006) and the point estimate favoured the experimental treatment in 58% (n = 76) and standard treatment in 42% (n = 54). The median non-inferiority margin (RR) pre-specified by trialists was 1.31 [inter-quartile range (IQR) 1.18–1.59]. Conclusion In this meta-analysis of non-inferiority trials the average RR comparing experimental with standard treatments was close to 1. The experimental treatments that gain a verdict of non-inferiority in published trials do not appear to be systematically less effective than the standard treatments. Importantly, publication bias and bias in the design and reporting of the studies cannot be ruled out and may have skewed the study results in favour of the experimental treatments. Further studies are required to examine the importance of such bias.