To compare the effectiveness of anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched surface modification implants in clinical applications.

This systematic review has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42023423656). A systematic search was performed using seven databases. The meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 program and Stata 17.0 software. An analysis of the risk of bias in the included studies was conducted using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.

A comprehensive analysis of 16 studies, which collectively encompassed a total of 2768 implants, was finished. Following a five years follow-up, the meta-analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate of implants was lower in the anodized group compared to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (RR, 3.47; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.23 to 9.81; P = 0.02). Furthermore, the anodized group and the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group had similar marginal bone loss over the one to three years follow-up period. However, it was observed that the marginal bone loss increased at the five years follow-up period in the anodized group in comparison to the sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group (SMD, 2.98; 95 % CI, 0.91 to 5.06; P = 0.005). In terms of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, we found no statistically significant differences between the anodized and sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group.

The sandblasted large-grit acid-etched group exhibited higher implants cumulative survival rate and less marginal bone loss compared to the anodized group. Moreover, both groups demonstrated similar incidences of biological complications, plaque index, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth, suggesting overall equivalence in these aspects.