Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Implant Biology, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Nov-Dec;27(6):1359-74.
The aim of the present systematic review was to address the following question: in patients treated with dental implants placed in pristine bone, what are the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bone-level (BL) implants in comparison to tissue-level (TL) implants after restoration with dental prostheses?
Scanning of online literature databases from 1966 to January 2012, supplemented by hand searching, was conducted to identify relevant prospective randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, and cohort studies. Sequential screenings at the title, abstract, and full-text levels were performed independently and in duplicate. A meta-analysis was conducted to compile data from the primary studies included in this systematic review.
The search strategy revealed a total of 5,998. Screening at the title level resulted in 752 papers, while screening at the abstract level yielded 92 publications. Full-text reading identified nine articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. The pooled estimated difference between BL and TL implants in mean marginal bone loss was 0.05 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.03 to 0.13 mm), with no statistically significant difference between the groups at 1 year after placement of the definitive prostheses. The relative risk of implant loss was estimated at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.02) at 1 year and at 1.01 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.03) at 3 years after restoration, indicating no evidence of an increased risk of implant loss in BL compared to TL implants.
No statistically significant differences in bone loss and survival rates were detected between BL and TL dental implants over a short-term observation period (1 to 3 years). Thus, both implant systems fulfill the requirements for the replacement of missing teeth in implant dentistry.
本系统评价旨在回答以下问题：在植入 pristine 骨的患者中，与软组织水平（TL）种植体相比，修复后骨水平（BL）种植体的临床和影像学结果如何？
从 1966 年到 2012 年 1 月，对在线文献数据库进行了扫描，并辅以手工搜索，以确定相关的前瞻性随机对照试验、对照临床试验和队列研究。在标题、摘要和全文水平上独立并重复进行了顺序筛选。对纳入本系统评价的主要研究进行了荟萃分析，以汇总数据。
搜索策略共显示了 5998 篇文章。标题水平的筛选得到了 752 篇论文，而摘要水平的筛选得到了 92 篇出版物。全文阅读确定了符合本综述纳入标准的九篇文章。BL 和 TL 种植体之间平均边缘骨丢失的汇总估计差异为 0.05 毫米（95%置信区间，-0.03 至 0.13 毫米），在放置最终修复体后 1 年时，两组之间无统计学差异。植入物丢失的相对风险估计为 1.00（95%置信区间，0.99 至 1.02）在植入物修复后 1 年和 3 年，表明 BL 与 TL 种植体相比，植入物丢失的风险没有增加。
在短期观察期（1 至 3 年）内，BL 和 TL 牙科种植体之间在骨丢失和存活率方面未发现统计学差异。因此，这两种种植体系统都满足种植牙缺失的要求。
