Musskopf ML, Finger Stadler A, Wikesjö UME, Susin C. The minipig intraoral dental implant model: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PLoS One 2022;
17:e0264475. [PMID:
35226690 PMCID:
PMC8884544 DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0264475]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 02/10/2022] [Indexed: 12/09/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this report was to provide a review of the minipig intraoral dental implant model including a meta-analysis to estimate osseointegration and crestal bone remodeling.
METHODS
A systematic review including PubMed and EMBASE databases through June 2021 was conducted. Two independent examiners screened titles/abstracts and selected full-text articles. Studies evaluating titanium dental implant osseointegration in native alveolar bone were included. A quality assessment of reporting was performed. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions were produced for bone-implant contact (BIC), first BIC, and crestal bone level.
RESULTS
125 out of 249 full-text articles were reviewed, 55 original studies were included. Quality of reporting was generally low, omissions included animal characteristics, examiner masking/calibration, and sample size calculation. The typical minipig model protocol included surgical extraction of the mandibular premolars and first molar, 12±4 wks post-extraction healing, placement of three narrow regular length dental implants per jaw quadrant, submerged implant healing and 8 wks of osseointegration. Approximately 90% of studies reported undecalcified incandescent light microscopy histometrics. Overall, mean BIC was 59.88% (95%CI: 57.43-62.33). BIC increased significantly over time (p<0.001): 40.93 (95%CI: 34.95-46.90) at 2 wks, 58.37% (95%CI: 54.38-62.36) at 4 wks, and 66.33% (95%CI: 63.45-69.21) beyond 4 wks. Variability among studies was mainly explained by differences in observation interval post-extraction and post-implant placement, and implant surface. Heterogeneity was high for all studies (I2 > 90%, p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The minipig intraoral dental implant model appears to effectively demonstrate osseointegration and alveolar bone remodeling similar to that observed in humans and canine models.
Collapse