Luigi Canullo, Maria Menini, Luca Guardone, Valeria Merlini, Virginia Cameroni, Anton Sculean, Paolo Pesce, Massimo Del Fabbro
{"title":"超亲水表面会影响骨整合早期愈合阶段种植体的初级稳定性吗?荟萃分析的系统评价。","authors":"Luigi Canullo, Maria Menini, Luca Guardone, Valeria Merlini, Virginia Cameroni, Anton Sculean, Paolo Pesce, Massimo Del Fabbro","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Implant stability, related to mechanical (primary) and biological (secondary) bone-to-implant interactions, is essential for osseointegration. Implant surface bioactivation is a process designed to accelerate and enhance surface-cell interaction.The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether a beneficial effect of bioactive (BS) over traditional surfaces (TS) can be identified.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases was performed to identify randomized (RCT) and non-randomized controlled trials comparing BS and TS implants. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for non-RCTs. Outcome variables were implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured through resonance frequency analysis from placement to prosthetic loading, one-year implant survival rate, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Meta-analysis was performed where possible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 6920 records identified, 13 RCTs and two non-RCTs were included, reporting on 1256 implants (49.8% TS and 50.2% BS) in 596 patients. Four of the studies had a low risk of bias, three had a moderate risk and eight had a high risk. The meta-analysis showed no evidence of an effect of implant surface on survival rate (p = 0.99, 10 studies) and MBL (p = 0.86, 5 studies). At baseline (10 studies) and at one month (9 studies) the ISQ did not differ statistically significantly different between groups. A statistically significantly greater increase in ISQ was found for the BS implants compared to the TS implants (p = 0.04) at three months after placement (9 studies).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An advantage of BS over TS during the early osseointegration phase could not be demonstrated, but a positive effect on implant stability seems to occur after three months of placement. The statement that bioactive surfaces may safely allow early and immediate implant loading is insufficiently supported by the current evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":"23 ","pages":"469-478"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12412763/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Super-hydrophilic Surfaces Affect Implant Primary Stability in the Early Healing Phase of Osseointegration? A Systematic Review with Metanalysis.\",\"authors\":\"Luigi Canullo, Maria Menini, Luca Guardone, Valeria Merlini, Virginia Cameroni, Anton Sculean, Paolo Pesce, Massimo Del Fabbro\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2235\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Implant stability, related to mechanical (primary) and biological (secondary) bone-to-implant interactions, is essential for osseointegration. Implant surface bioactivation is a process designed to accelerate and enhance surface-cell interaction.The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether a beneficial effect of bioactive (BS) over traditional surfaces (TS) can be identified.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases was performed to identify randomized (RCT) and non-randomized controlled trials comparing BS and TS implants. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for non-RCTs. Outcome variables were implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured through resonance frequency analysis from placement to prosthetic loading, one-year implant survival rate, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Meta-analysis was performed where possible.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 6920 records identified, 13 RCTs and two non-RCTs were included, reporting on 1256 implants (49.8% TS and 50.2% BS) in 596 patients. Four of the studies had a low risk of bias, three had a moderate risk and eight had a high risk. The meta-analysis showed no evidence of an effect of implant surface on survival rate (p = 0.99, 10 studies) and MBL (p = 0.86, 5 studies). At baseline (10 studies) and at one month (9 studies) the ISQ did not differ statistically significantly different between groups. A statistically significantly greater increase in ISQ was found for the BS implants compared to the TS implants (p = 0.04) at three months after placement (9 studies).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>An advantage of BS over TS during the early osseointegration phase could not be demonstrated, but a positive effect on implant stability seems to occur after three months of placement. The statement that bioactive surfaces may safely allow early and immediate implant loading is insufficiently supported by the current evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"23 \",\"pages\":\"469-478\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12412763/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2235\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.c_2235","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Do Super-hydrophilic Surfaces Affect Implant Primary Stability in the Early Healing Phase of Osseointegration? A Systematic Review with Metanalysis.
Purpose: Implant stability, related to mechanical (primary) and biological (secondary) bone-to-implant interactions, is essential for osseointegration. Implant surface bioactivation is a process designed to accelerate and enhance surface-cell interaction.The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether a beneficial effect of bioactive (BS) over traditional surfaces (TS) can be identified.
Materials and methods: An electronic search of Pubmed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases was performed to identify randomized (RCT) and non-randomized controlled trials comparing BS and TS implants. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for RCTs and the Joanna Briggs Institute tool for non-RCTs. Outcome variables were implant stability quotient (ISQ) measured through resonance frequency analysis from placement to prosthetic loading, one-year implant survival rate, and marginal bone loss (MBL). Meta-analysis was performed where possible.
Results: Of the 6920 records identified, 13 RCTs and two non-RCTs were included, reporting on 1256 implants (49.8% TS and 50.2% BS) in 596 patients. Four of the studies had a low risk of bias, three had a moderate risk and eight had a high risk. The meta-analysis showed no evidence of an effect of implant surface on survival rate (p = 0.99, 10 studies) and MBL (p = 0.86, 5 studies). At baseline (10 studies) and at one month (9 studies) the ISQ did not differ statistically significantly different between groups. A statistically significantly greater increase in ISQ was found for the BS implants compared to the TS implants (p = 0.04) at three months after placement (9 studies).
Conclusion: An advantage of BS over TS during the early osseointegration phase could not be demonstrated, but a positive effect on implant stability seems to occur after three months of placement. The statement that bioactive surfaces may safely allow early and immediate implant loading is insufficiently supported by the current evidence.
期刊介绍:
Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.