Less marginal bone loss around bone-level implants restored with long abutments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 17.5 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Periodontology 2000 Pub Date : 2024-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-28 DOI:10.1111/prd.12534
Péter Tajti, Eleonora Solyom, Szilárd Váncsa, Péter Mátrai, Péter Hegyi, Gábor Varga, Péter Hermann, Judit Borbély, Anton Sculean, Krisztina Mikulás
{"title":"Less marginal bone loss around bone-level implants restored with long abutments: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Péter Tajti, Eleonora Solyom, Szilárd Váncsa, Péter Mátrai, Péter Hegyi, Gábor Varga, Péter Hermann, Judit Borbély, Anton Sculean, Krisztina Mikulás","doi":"10.1111/prd.12534","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The aim of this study was to investigate the biological outcomes of bone-level implants restored with long vs. short abutments, with regard to the 'one abutment at one time' protocol. The systematic search was performed in five databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials up to January 14, 2023. Data were collected for marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth by two reviewers. As effect size measure, mean difference (MD), and risk ratio (RR) were used for continuous and categorical outcomes, R-statistics software was used for conducting statistical analyses. For quality and certainty assessment, Risk of Bias Tool 2, ROBINS-I, and GRADE approach were used. The search resulted in 4055 records without any duplicates. After title, abstract, and full-text analysis, eight articles were found eligible for inclusion. Bone-level and platform-switched implants presented less marginal bone loss after 6 months and 1 year as well, when long abutments were used (MD 0.63, 95% CI: [-0.16; 1.42]) and (MD 0.26, 95% CI: [-0.02; 0.53]). However, subgroup analysis revealed no difference in marginal bone loss when applying 'one abutment at one time' protocol (p = 0.973). Bleeding on probing and probing pocket depth presented similarly good results in both groups without almost any differences (RR 0.97, 95% CI: [0.76; 1.23]) and (MD -0.05, 95% CI: [-1.11; 1.01]). Longer abutments on bone-level implants seem to be a favorable choice for decreasing early marginal bone loss, irrespective of connection timing.</p>","PeriodicalId":19736,"journal":{"name":"Periodontology 2000","volume":" ","pages":"627-638"},"PeriodicalIF":17.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Periodontology 2000","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12534","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the biological outcomes of bone-level implants restored with long vs. short abutments, with regard to the 'one abutment at one time' protocol. The systematic search was performed in five databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials up to January 14, 2023. Data were collected for marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth by two reviewers. As effect size measure, mean difference (MD), and risk ratio (RR) were used for continuous and categorical outcomes, R-statistics software was used for conducting statistical analyses. For quality and certainty assessment, Risk of Bias Tool 2, ROBINS-I, and GRADE approach were used. The search resulted in 4055 records without any duplicates. After title, abstract, and full-text analysis, eight articles were found eligible for inclusion. Bone-level and platform-switched implants presented less marginal bone loss after 6 months and 1 year as well, when long abutments were used (MD 0.63, 95% CI: [-0.16; 1.42]) and (MD 0.26, 95% CI: [-0.02; 0.53]). However, subgroup analysis revealed no difference in marginal bone loss when applying 'one abutment at one time' protocol (p = 0.973). Bleeding on probing and probing pocket depth presented similarly good results in both groups without almost any differences (RR 0.97, 95% CI: [0.76; 1.23]) and (MD -0.05, 95% CI: [-1.11; 1.01]). Longer abutments on bone-level implants seem to be a favorable choice for decreasing early marginal bone loss, irrespective of connection timing.

长基牙修复骨水平植入物周围的边缘骨丢失较少:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。
本研究的目的是根据“一次一个基牙”方案,研究用长基牙和短基牙修复骨水平植入物的生物学结果。截至2023年1月14日,在MEDLINE(PubMed)、EMBASE、Web of Science、Scopus和CENTRAL五个数据库中进行了系统搜索,用于随机对照试验。两位评审员收集了边缘骨丢失、探查出血和探查袋深度的数据。作为效应大小测量、平均差(MD)和风险比(RR)用于连续和分类结果,R统计软件用于进行统计分析。对于质量和确定性评估,使用了偏差风险工具2、ROBINS-I和GRADE方法。搜索得到4055条记录,没有任何重复。经过标题、摘要和全文分析,发现有八篇文章符合入选条件。骨水平和平台转换植入物在6个月后表现出较少的边缘骨损失 月和1 年,当使用长基牙时(MD 0.63,95%CI:[-0.16;1.42])和(MD 0.26,95%CI:-0.02;0.53])。然而,亚组分析显示,当使用“一次一个基牙”方案时,边缘骨损失没有差异(p = 0.973)。在两组中,探查出血和探查袋深度表现出类似的良好结果,几乎没有任何差异(RR 0.97,95%CI:[0.76;1.23])和(MD-0.05,95%CI:[1-111;1.01])。无论连接时间如何,骨水平植入物上较长的基牙似乎是减少早期边缘骨损失的有利选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Periodontology 2000
Periodontology 2000 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
34.10
自引率
2.20%
发文量
62
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Periodontology 2000 is a series of monographs designed for periodontists and general practitioners interested in periodontics. The editorial board selects significant topics and distinguished scientists and clinicians for each monograph. Serving as a valuable supplement to existing periodontal journals, three monographs are published annually, contributing specialized insights to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信