Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Mar-Apr;26(2):290-303.
The aim of this article was to evaluate the effectiveness of various implant neck configurations in the preservation of marginal bone level as well as to identify the available scientific evidence.
Online and hand searches of the literature published from 1976 through 2009 were conducted to identify studies dealing with modifications in the implant neck area and marginal bone loss for at least a 5-year observation period. The search terms that were used, alone or in combination, were "implant neck," "marginal bone loss," "neck design," "bone resorption," "bone remodeling," and "implant collar." Relevant studies were selected according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The initial search yielded 3,517 relevant titles and revealed eight different implant neck configurations and/or methods suggested for the preservation of marginal bone. These methods included changes in implant neck length and design, implant surface characteristics, implant diameter, and/or insertion depth; the addition of microthreads; the use of one-piece implants; and the concept of platform switching. After subsequent filtering, 20 studies were finally selected and involved the following methods: the use of microthreads (1 study); modifications in implant surface characteristics (11 studies), implant diameter (4 studies), or insertion depth (2 studies); the use of one-piece implants (3 studies); and platform switching (1 study). Because of the heterogeneity of the studies, it was not possible to analyze the data statistically. No evidence was found regarding the effectiveness of any specific modification in the implant neck area in preserving marginal bone or preventing marginal bone loss.
The current literature provides insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of different implant neck configurations in the preservation of marginal bone. Long-term randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to elucidate the effects of such modifications.
本文旨在评估各种种植体颈部构型在保存边缘骨水平方面的有效性，并确定现有的科学证据。
通过在线和手工搜索，检索了 1976 年至 2009 年期间发表的文献，以确定涉及种植体颈部区域修改和边缘骨丧失至少 5 年观察期的研究。使用的搜索词单独或组合使用，包括“种植体颈部”、“边缘骨丧失”、“颈部设计”、“骨吸收”、“骨重塑”和“种植体领圈”。根据预先确定的纳入和排除标准选择相关研究。
最初的搜索产生了 3517 个相关标题，并显示了为保存边缘骨而提出的八种不同的种植体颈部构型和/或方法。这些方法包括改变种植体颈部长度和设计、种植体表面特性、种植体直径和/或插入深度；增加微螺纹；使用一体式种植体；以及平台转换的概念。经过后续过滤，最终选择了 20 项研究，涉及以下方法：使用微螺纹（1 项研究）；修改种植体表面特性（11 项研究）、种植体直径（4 项研究）或插入深度（2 项研究）；使用一体式种植体（3 项研究）；以及平台转换（1 项研究）。由于研究的异质性，无法对数据进行统计学分析。没有证据表明种植体颈部区域的任何特定修改在保存边缘骨或防止边缘骨丧失方面有效。
目前的文献提供的证据不足以证明不同种植体颈部构型在保存边缘骨方面的有效性。需要进行长期的随机对照临床试验来阐明这些修改的效果。
