{"title":"种植体周围炎的流行与旋转和粗糙表面种植体:系统回顾。","authors":"Nikola Saulacic, Benoit Schaller","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2019.10101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5037/jomr.2019.10101","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Prevalence of Peri-Implantitis in Implants with Turned and Rough Surfaces: a Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Nikola Saulacic, Benoit Schaller\",\"doi\":\"10.5037/jomr.2019.10101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":53254,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5037/jomr.2019.10101\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2019.10101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Prevalence of Peri-Implantitis in Implants with Turned and Rough Surfaces: a Systematic Review.
Objectives: Moderately-rough implant surface may improve implant therapy in terms of bone integration, but the increased surface roughness might affect the initiation and development of peri-implantitis. The aim of the present review was to compare the prevalence of peri-implantitis in implants with rough and turned (machined) implant surfaces.
Material and methods: An electronic literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1 January 1990 and 1 March 2018. Clinical human studies in the English language that had reported on prevalence of peri-implantitis in tuned and rough surface implants were searched. The initial search resulted in 690 articles.
Results: Eight articles with 2992 implants were included in the systematic review. The incidence of peri-implantitis for two implant surfaces varied between studies. A meta-analysis was not feasible due to the heterogeneity among studies. Implant with rough surfaces were more favourable for plaque accumulation during short-term follow-up. On a long-term, turned implants surfaces were associated with more plaque and higher peri-implant bone loss. Peri-implant clinical parameters and survival rate for two implant surfaces was similar.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, rough implant surface does not seem to increase the incidence of peri-implantitis in comparison to turned implants surface.