Linkevicius Tomas, Apse Peteris
Vilnius Implantology Center, Kalvariju str. 121-2, LT-08221, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 May-Jun;23(3):449-56.
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate available evidence for a difference in the stability of peri-implant tissues between titanium abutments versus gold alloy, zirconium oxide, or aluminum oxide abutments.
Studies were identified by examining several electronic databases and major dental implant, prosthetic, and periodontal journals. To be selected for the preliminary article pool, the article must have been written in the English language and published from 1980 to March 2007. Articles were sorted based on the nature of the study. In vitro studies and literature reviews were excluded. The included articles were clinical, human histology, and animal studies. Case reports, case series, uncontrolled clinical trials, and clinical studies with teeth treated as a control were excluded from the final review.
The initial article pool included 40 articles of which 9 met the inclusion criteria: 3 animal studies, 2 human histological studies, and 4 randomized clinical trials. Soft tissue recession was not accurately measured in the included clinical studies. Assessment of peri-implant tissues around zirconium oxide and titanium abutments was described only in animal and human histologic studies. Due to differences in study types, timing of follow-ups, and outcome variables, meta-analysis could not be performed.
Included studies revealed that titanium abutments did not maintain a higher bone level in comparison to gold alloy, aluminum oxide, or zirconium oxide abutments. However, there is a lack of information about the clinical performance of zirconium oxide and gold alloy abutments as compared to titanium abutments.
本系统评价旨在评估钛基台与金合金、氧化锆或氧化铝基台相比，种植体周围组织稳定性差异的现有证据。
通过检索多个电子数据库以及主要的牙种植、修复和牙周病学杂志来识别研究。要被选入初步文章库，文章必须用英文撰写且发表于1980年至2007年3月期间。文章根据研究性质进行分类。体外研究和文献综述被排除。纳入的文章包括临床研究、人体组织学研究和动物研究。病例报告、病例系列、非对照临床试验以及以牙齿作为对照的临床研究被排除在最终评价之外。
初步文章库包括40篇文章，其中9篇符合纳入标准：3篇动物研究、2篇人体组织学研究和4篇随机临床试验。纳入的临床研究中未准确测量软组织退缩情况。仅在动物和人体组织学研究中描述了氧化锆基台和钛基台周围种植体周围组织的评估。由于研究类型、随访时间和结局变量的差异，无法进行荟萃分析。
纳入的研究表明，与金合金、氧化铝或氧化锆基台相比，钛基台并未保持更高的骨水平。然而，与钛基台相比，关于氧化锆和金合金基台临床性能的信息不足。
