牙科种植体的临床表现是否受不同宏观几何形状的影响?系统回顾与荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Gilda Rocha Dos Reis-Neta, Gabriel Felipe Marino Cerqueira, Michele Costa Oliveira Ribeiro, Marcela Baraúna Magno, Guido Artemio Maranón Vásquez, Lucianne Cople Maia, Altair A Del Bel Cury, Raissa M Marcello-Machado
{"title":"牙科种植体的临床表现是否受不同宏观几何形状的影响?系统回顾与荟萃分析。","authors":"Gilda Rocha Dos Reis-Neta, Gabriel Felipe Marino Cerqueira, Michele Costa Oliveira Ribeiro, Marcela Baraúna Magno, Guido Artemio Maranón Vásquez, Lucianne Cople Maia, Altair A Del Bel Cury, Raissa M Marcello-Machado","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Although tapered and cylindrical implants have been widely used, a consensus on which macrogeometry offers better clinical performance is lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of different macrogeometries (tapered and cylindrical) on the clinical performance of dental implants.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022347436). A search for clinical studies was conducted in 6 databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of tapered and cylindrical implants placed in the maxilla or mandible of adult patients that had at least 1 clinical performance parameter as outcome. The risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analyses on implant survival and success, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability (ISQ), and torque insertion (TI) were performed, with the certainty of evidence evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 18 included studies, 7 had a low risk, 6 had some concerns, and 5 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses of survival (RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01]; P=.38; I2=0%), implant success (RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.13] P=.08 I2=0%), 1-month MBL (MD -0.11 [-0.33, 0.10] P=.31 I2=98%), 3 months MBL (MD -0.21 [-0.27, 0.16] P=.26 I2=98%), 6 months MBL (MD -0.29 [-0.60, 0.01] P=.06 I<sup>2</sup>=74%), 1-year MBL (MD 0.01 [-0.07, 0.09] P=.77 I2=98%) and after 2 years MBL (MD -0.04 [-0.14, 0.07] P=.52 I2=0%), ISQ at implant installation (MD 0.35 [-0.72, 1.42] P=.52 I2=0%), %), after 2 months (MD 0.90 [-1.08, 2.87] P=.37 I2=0%) and at 1 year (MD -0.02 [-1.07, 1.03] P=.97 I2=0%), and insertion torque (MD 3.10 [-1.71, 7.92] P=.21 I2=80%) were statistically similar. However, tapered implants showed higher ISQ than cylindrical implants after 3 months (MD 1.20 [0.39, 2.01] P=.004 I2=17%). The certainty of evidence for the analyzed parameters ranged from high to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both macrogeometries present good clinical performance, with certainty of evidence ranging from high to very low. Tapered implants showed better secondary stability at 3 months after implant installation, but with low certainty of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the clinical performance of dental implants influenced by different macrogeometries? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Gilda Rocha Dos Reis-Neta, Gabriel Felipe Marino Cerqueira, Michele Costa Oliveira Ribeiro, Marcela Baraúna Magno, Guido Artemio Maranón Vásquez, Lucianne Cople Maia, Altair A Del Bel Cury, Raissa M Marcello-Machado\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Although tapered and cylindrical implants have been widely used, a consensus on which macrogeometry offers better clinical performance is lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of different macrogeometries (tapered and cylindrical) on the clinical performance of dental implants.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022347436). A search for clinical studies was conducted in 6 databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of tapered and cylindrical implants placed in the maxilla or mandible of adult patients that had at least 1 clinical performance parameter as outcome. The risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analyses on implant survival and success, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability (ISQ), and torque insertion (TI) were performed, with the certainty of evidence evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) checklist.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 18 included studies, 7 had a low risk, 6 had some concerns, and 5 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses of survival (RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01]; P=.38; I2=0%), implant success (RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.13] P=.08 I2=0%), 1-month MBL (MD -0.11 [-0.33, 0.10] P=.31 I2=98%), 3 months MBL (MD -0.21 [-0.27, 0.16] P=.26 I2=98%), 6 months MBL (MD -0.29 [-0.60, 0.01] P=.06 I<sup>2</sup>=74%), 1-year MBL (MD 0.01 [-0.07, 0.09] P=.77 I2=98%) and after 2 years MBL (MD -0.04 [-0.14, 0.07] P=.52 I2=0%), ISQ at implant installation (MD 0.35 [-0.72, 1.42] P=.52 I2=0%), %), after 2 months (MD 0.90 [-1.08, 2.87] P=.37 I2=0%) and at 1 year (MD -0.02 [-1.07, 1.03] P=.97 I2=0%), and insertion torque (MD 3.10 [-1.71, 7.92] P=.21 I2=80%) were statistically similar. However, tapered implants showed higher ISQ than cylindrical implants after 3 months (MD 1.20 [0.39, 2.01] P=.004 I2=17%). The certainty of evidence for the analyzed parameters ranged from high to very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both macrogeometries present good clinical performance, with certainty of evidence ranging from high to very low. Tapered implants showed better secondary stability at 3 months after implant installation, but with low certainty of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题陈述:尽管锥形和圆柱形种植体已被广泛使用,但对于哪种宏观几何形状能提供更好的临床表现还缺乏共识。目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估不同宏观几何形状(锥形和圆柱形)对牙科种植体临床表现的影响:该研究已在国际前瞻性系统综述注册数据库(PROSPERO)(CRD42022347436)中注册。该研究在 6 个数据库中进行了临床研究检索,以确定评估在成年患者的上颌骨或下颌骨植入锥形和圆柱形种植体的有效性的随机对照临床试验,这些试验至少有一个临床表现参数作为结果。偏倚风险采用修订版科克伦偏倚风险工具(RoB 2)进行评估。对种植体存活率和成功率、边缘骨损失(MBL)、种植体稳定性(ISQ)和扭矩插入(TI)进行了元分析,并使用建议、评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)清单对证据的确定性进行了评估:在纳入的 18 项研究中,7 项研究的偏倚风险较低,6 项研究存在一些问题,5 项研究的偏倚风险较高。对存活率(RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01];P=.38;I2=0%)、植入成功率(RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.13] P=.08 I2=0%)、1 个月 MBL(MD -0.11 [-0.33, 0.10] P=.31 I2=98%)、3 个月 MBL(MD -0.21 [-0.27, 0.16] P=.26 I2=98%)、6 个月 MBL(MD -0.29 [-0.60, 0.01] P=.06 I2=74%)、1 年 MBL(MD 0.01 [-0.07, 0.09] P=.77 I2=98%)和 2 年后 MBL(MD -0.04 [-0.14, 0.07] P=.52 I2=0%)、安装种植体时的 ISQ(MD 0.35 [-0.72, 1.42] P=.52 I2=0%)、%)、2 个月后(MD 0.90 [-1.08, 2.87] P=.37 I2=0%)和 1 年后(MD -0.02 [-1.07, 1.03] P=.97 I2=0%)的 ISQ 以及插入扭矩(MD 3.10 [-1.71, 7.92] P=.21 I2=80%)在统计学上相似。然而,锥形种植体在 3 个月后的 ISQ 值高于圆柱形种植体(MD 1.20 [0.39, 2.01] P=.004 I2=17%)。分析参数的证据确定性从高到非常低不等:两种大几何形态都具有良好的临床表现,证据的确定性从高到低不等。锥形种植体在安装3个月后显示出更好的次生稳定性,但证据确定性较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is the clinical performance of dental implants influenced by different macrogeometries? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Statement of problem: Although tapered and cylindrical implants have been widely used, a consensus on which macrogeometry offers better clinical performance is lacking.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of different macrogeometries (tapered and cylindrical) on the clinical performance of dental implants.

Material and methods: The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022347436). A search for clinical studies was conducted in 6 databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of tapered and cylindrical implants placed in the maxilla or mandible of adult patients that had at least 1 clinical performance parameter as outcome. The risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analyses on implant survival and success, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability (ISQ), and torque insertion (TI) were performed, with the certainty of evidence evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) checklist.

Results: Of the 18 included studies, 7 had a low risk, 6 had some concerns, and 5 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses of survival (RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01]; P=.38; I2=0%), implant success (RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.13] P=.08 I2=0%), 1-month MBL (MD -0.11 [-0.33, 0.10] P=.31 I2=98%), 3 months MBL (MD -0.21 [-0.27, 0.16] P=.26 I2=98%), 6 months MBL (MD -0.29 [-0.60, 0.01] P=.06 I2=74%), 1-year MBL (MD 0.01 [-0.07, 0.09] P=.77 I2=98%) and after 2 years MBL (MD -0.04 [-0.14, 0.07] P=.52 I2=0%), ISQ at implant installation (MD 0.35 [-0.72, 1.42] P=.52 I2=0%), %), after 2 months (MD 0.90 [-1.08, 2.87] P=.37 I2=0%) and at 1 year (MD -0.02 [-1.07, 1.03] P=.97 I2=0%), and insertion torque (MD 3.10 [-1.71, 7.92] P=.21 I2=80%) were statistically similar. However, tapered implants showed higher ISQ than cylindrical implants after 3 months (MD 1.20 [0.39, 2.01] P=.004 I2=17%). The certainty of evidence for the analyzed parameters ranged from high to very low.

Conclusions: Both macrogeometries present good clinical performance, with certainty of evidence ranging from high to very low. Tapered implants showed better secondary stability at 3 months after implant installation, but with low certainty of evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
599
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.
×
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