Yu-Ting Yeh, Lan-Lin Chiou, Hsuan-Hung Chen, Guo- Hao Lin, Richard T Kao, Donald A Curtis
{"title":"牙科植入物直径对修复体并发症的影响:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Yu-Ting Yeh, Lan-Lin Chiou, Hsuan-Hung Chen, Guo- Hao Lin, Richard T Kao, Donald A Curtis","doi":"10.11607/jomi.10964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyze the risk of prosthesis complications across different implant diameters.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An electronic search across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until December 2023 was performed. Studies comparing implant prosthesis complications among extra-narrow (<3.0 mm), narrow (≥3.0 to <3.75 mm), standard (≥3.75 to <5 mm), and wide-diameter (≥5 mm) implants were included. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the risk ratio of prosthesis complications across different diameters, particularly in non-full arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen clinical studies were included. In non-full arch ISFDP, the most prevalent complication was screw loosening in narrow, standard, and wide-diameter implants (17.28%, 4.08% and 12.45%, respectively), and decementation (3.4%) in extra-narrow diameter implants. In implant overdentures, extra-narrow, narrow and standard-diameter implants demonstrated high rates of retentive cap wear (58.33%, 80.49% and 70%, respectively), whereas wide-diameter implants had 16.67% overdenture repair. The meta-analyses showed a risk ratio of 0.20 (95% confidence interval= 0.04 to 0.94, p= 0.04) and 0.17 (95% CI= 0.06 to 0.45, p< 0.0004) for abutment fracture in single crowns and ISFDP comparing narrow versus standard-diameter implants. No significant differences in risk ratios were observed for screw loosening, decementation, porcelain chipping, fracture, or screw fracture among the different diameter groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights that screw loosening and retentive cap wear are the most common prosthesis complications in ISFDP and overdentures, regardless of implant diameter. While narrow-diameter implants have a lower risk of abutment fracture compared to standard-diameter implants, clinicians should carefully consider patient characteristics, implant locations, and abutment features when selecting the ideal implant diameter.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Dental Implant Diameters on Prosthesis Complications: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yu-Ting Yeh, Lan-Lin Chiou, Hsuan-Hung Chen, Guo- Hao Lin, Richard T Kao, Donald A Curtis\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.10964\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyze the risk of prosthesis complications across different implant diameters.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An electronic search across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until December 2023 was performed. Studies comparing implant prosthesis complications among extra-narrow (<3.0 mm), narrow (≥3.0 to <3.75 mm), standard (≥3.75 to <5 mm), and wide-diameter (≥5 mm) implants were included. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the risk ratio of prosthesis complications across different diameters, particularly in non-full arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen clinical studies were included. In non-full arch ISFDP, the most prevalent complication was screw loosening in narrow, standard, and wide-diameter implants (17.28%, 4.08% and 12.45%, respectively), and decementation (3.4%) in extra-narrow diameter implants. In implant overdentures, extra-narrow, narrow and standard-diameter implants demonstrated high rates of retentive cap wear (58.33%, 80.49% and 70%, respectively), whereas wide-diameter implants had 16.67% overdenture repair. The meta-analyses showed a risk ratio of 0.20 (95% confidence interval= 0.04 to 0.94, p= 0.04) and 0.17 (95% CI= 0.06 to 0.45, p< 0.0004) for abutment fracture in single crowns and ISFDP comparing narrow versus standard-diameter implants. No significant differences in risk ratios were observed for screw loosening, decementation, porcelain chipping, fracture, or screw fracture among the different diameter groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This systematic review highlights that screw loosening and retentive cap wear are the most common prosthesis complications in ISFDP and overdentures, regardless of implant diameter. While narrow-diameter implants have a lower risk of abutment fracture compared to standard-diameter implants, clinicians should carefully consider patient characteristics, implant locations, and abutment features when selecting the ideal implant diameter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94230,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"volume\":\"0 0\",\"pages\":\"1-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10964\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Influence of Dental Implant Diameters on Prosthesis Complications: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to analyze the risk of prosthesis complications across different implant diameters.
Materials and methods: An electronic search across PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until December 2023 was performed. Studies comparing implant prosthesis complications among extra-narrow (<3.0 mm), narrow (≥3.0 to <3.75 mm), standard (≥3.75 to <5 mm), and wide-diameter (≥5 mm) implants were included. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the risk ratio of prosthesis complications across different diameters, particularly in non-full arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP).
Results: Eighteen clinical studies were included. In non-full arch ISFDP, the most prevalent complication was screw loosening in narrow, standard, and wide-diameter implants (17.28%, 4.08% and 12.45%, respectively), and decementation (3.4%) in extra-narrow diameter implants. In implant overdentures, extra-narrow, narrow and standard-diameter implants demonstrated high rates of retentive cap wear (58.33%, 80.49% and 70%, respectively), whereas wide-diameter implants had 16.67% overdenture repair. The meta-analyses showed a risk ratio of 0.20 (95% confidence interval= 0.04 to 0.94, p= 0.04) and 0.17 (95% CI= 0.06 to 0.45, p< 0.0004) for abutment fracture in single crowns and ISFDP comparing narrow versus standard-diameter implants. No significant differences in risk ratios were observed for screw loosening, decementation, porcelain chipping, fracture, or screw fracture among the different diameter groups.
Conclusions: This systematic review highlights that screw loosening and retentive cap wear are the most common prosthesis complications in ISFDP and overdentures, regardless of implant diameter. While narrow-diameter implants have a lower risk of abutment fracture compared to standard-diameter implants, clinicians should carefully consider patient characteristics, implant locations, and abutment features when selecting the ideal implant diameter.