The influence of insertion torque values on the failure and complication rates of dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: The influence of using different insertion torque values on clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant therapy is unclear in the current literature. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the implant outcomes and complications rates using high insertion torque values compared with those using regular insertion torque value levels. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized controlled clinical trials (NRCCTs), prospective and retrospective cohorts were searched for in electronic databases and complemented by hand searching relevant dental journals. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool for randomized and nonrandomized studies. Data were analyzed using a statistical software. Results: A total of 718 studies were identified, of which, nine studies were included with 1229 dental implants in 684 participants. The meta-analysis of RCTs showed that the overall implant failure rate was not notably in favor of any insertion torque value and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (risk ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval 0.07–10.52; P = 0.90). None of the RCTs was registered. The secondary analyses of non-RCTs did not either show any statistically significant difference. Overall meta-analysis did not show any significant differences in peri-implant marginal bone loss or biological/technical complications between high (≥50 Ncm) and regular insertion torque (<50 Ncm). Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of high or regular insertion torque even with immediate implant restoration/loading. The short-term implant failure rates, changes in marginal bone level and complication rates were comparable when high or regular insertion torques were used for implant placement. The wide confidence interval indicated that results cannot be interpreted with clinically meaningful benefit for using either high or regular insertion torque.