Evidence Hub

Dental implants in large animal models with experimental systemic diseases: A systematic review

Flávia Gomes Matos, Anna Clara Abreu Stremel, L. Lipinski, J. Cirelli, F. D. dos Santos

Laboratory Animals. Journal of the Laboratory Animal Science Association, 2023

4 citations

Abstract

This systematic review aims to identify and discuss the most used methodologies in pre-clinical studies for the evaluation of the implementation of dental implants in systemically compromised pigs and sheep. This study provides support and guidance for future research, as well as for the prevention of unnecessary animal wastage and sacrifice. Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used as a guideline; electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Scielo, Web of Science, Embase, Science Direct, Brazilian Bibliography of Dentistry, Latin American and Caribbean Literature in Health Sciences, Directory of Open Access Journals, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and gray literature until January 2022 (PROSPERO/CRD42021270119). Sixty-eight articles were chosen from the 2439 results. Most studies were conducted in pigs, mainly the Göttinger and Domesticus breeds. Healthy animals with implants installed in the jaws were predominant among the pig studies. Of the studies evaluating the effect of systemic diseases on osseointegration, 42% were performed in osteoporotic sheep, 32% in diabetic sheep, and 26% in diabetic pigs. Osteoporosis was primarily induced by bilateral ovariectomy and mainly assessed by X-ray densitometry. Diabetes was induced predominantly by intravenous streptozotocin and was confirmed by blood glucose analysis. Histological and histomorphometric analyses were the most frequently employed in the evaluation of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free