Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prostheses, and Dental Materials, Federal University of Uberlândia, School of Dentistry, Uberlândia, Brazil.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jul-Aug;27(4):793-800.
This study sought to evaluate the influence of methodologic aspects on variations in the findings of in vitro microleakage studies of the implant-abutment interface.
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were consulted for in vitro studies published between 1990 and August 2011. Date from the studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were arranged in tables and subjected to descriptive analysis.
Twenty-one studies were found to be eligible for the analysis after application of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixteen studies used bacteria (76.2%), one used a bacterial toxin (4.76%), one used saliva (4.76%), two employed dyes (9.52%), and one used a combination of dyes and bacteria (4.76%). Eight studies evaluated microleakage from the inner portion of the implant to the external portion (38.1%) and nine examined the reverse (42.85%), while four studies investigated the relationship between them (19.05%). The volume inoculated inside the implants ranged from 0.1 to 5.0 mL. The bacterial concentrations used in the tests ranged from 2.41 x 10⁶ to 8 x 10⁸ colony-forming units/mL. Oral bacterial flora; mixtures of bacteria, toluidine blue, and gentian violet; and lipopolysaccharide of Salmonella enterica bacterial toxins were used. The monitoring period of test results ranged from 24 hours to 11 weeks for bacteria, 5 minutes to 7 days for dye, and 7 days for bacterial toxins. In four studies, microleakage was correlated with the size of the implant-abutment microgap. The external-hexagon implant configuration showed the greatest microleakage, followed by internal-trilobe, internal-hexagon, and internal-taper configurations.
The lack of standardization hinderd comparisons of the studies and could explain the divergent results. It is suggested for future studies that special emphasis be placed upon inoculation and analysis of the specific volume for each system, lower concentrations of inoculated bacterial suspensions, and shorter follow-up time when using bacteria.
本研究旨在评估方法学方面对种植体-基台界面体外微渗漏研究结果差异的影响。
检索 1990 年至 2011 年 8 月期间发表的体外研究的 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库。将符合纳入和排除标准的研究数据整理成表格，并进行描述性分析。
应用纳入/排除标准后，共发现 21 项研究符合分析条件。16 项研究使用细菌（76.2%），1 项研究使用细菌毒素（4.76%），1 项研究使用唾液（4.76%），2 项研究使用染料（9.52%），1 项研究使用染料和细菌的混合物（4.76%）。8 项研究评估了从种植体内部到外部的微渗漏（38.1%），9 项研究评估了相反方向的微渗漏（42.85%），4 项研究研究了两者之间的关系（19.05%）。注入种植体内部的体积从 0.1 到 5.0 毫升不等。测试中使用的细菌浓度范围从 2.41 x 10⁶到 8 x 10⁸菌落形成单位/毫升。使用了口腔细菌菌群、细菌与甲苯胺蓝和结晶紫的混合物以及沙门氏菌 enterica 细菌毒素的脂多糖。测试结果的监测时间范围为细菌的 24 小时至 11 周，染料的 5 分钟至 7 天，细菌毒素的 7 天。在 4 项研究中，微渗漏与种植体-基台微间隙的大小相关。外部六方种植体结构显示出最大的微渗漏，其次是内部三叶形、内部六方形和内部锥形结构。
缺乏标准化阻碍了研究之间的比较，也可以解释结果的差异。建议未来的研究特别强调每个系统的接种和分析特定体积、接种细菌悬浮液的较低浓度以及使用细菌时较短的随访时间。
