Chrcanovic Bruno Ramos, Albrektsson Tomas, Wennerberg Ann
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
Department of Biomaterials, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden.
J Dent. 2015 Jun;43(6):629-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.013. Epub 2015 Jan 2.
To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the implant failure rates, marginal bone loss (MBL) and postoperative infection in patients who received platform-switched implants or platform-matched implants, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.
Main search terms used in combination: dental implant, oral implant, platform switch, switched platform, platform mismatch, and dental implant-abutment design.
An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertaken in December/2014 in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register plus hand-searching.
Eligibility criteria included clinical human studies, either randomized or not.
Twenty-eight publications were included, with a total of 1216 platform-switched implants (16 failures; 1.32%) and 1157 platform-matched implants (13 failures; 1.12%). There was less MBL loss at implants with platform-switching than at implants with platform-matching (mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.19; P<0.00001). An increase of the mean difference of MBL between the procedures was observed with the increase in the follow-up time (P=0.001) and with the increase of the mismatch between the implant platform and the abutment (P=0.001). Due to lack of satisfactory information, meta-analyses for the outcomes 'implant failure' and 'postoperative infection' were not performed. The results of the present review should be interpreted with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled confounding factors in the included studies, most of them with short follow-up periods.
The question whether platform-matched implants are more at risk for failure and loose more marginal bone than platform-switched implants has received increasing attention in the last years. As the philosophies of treatment alter over time, a periodic review of the different concepts is necessary to refine techniques and eliminate unnecessary procedures, forming a basis for optimum treatment.
检验接受平台转换种植体或平台匹配种植体的患者在种植体失败率、边缘骨丢失(MBL)和术后感染方面无差异的零假设,备择假设为存在差异。
联合使用的主要检索词:牙种植体、口腔种植体、平台转换、转换平台、平台不匹配以及牙种植体-基台设计。
2014年12月在PubMed/Medline、科学网、Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库进行了无时间或语言限制的电子检索,并进行了手工检索。
纳入标准包括临床人体研究,无论是否为随机研究。
纳入28篇文献,共有1216颗平台转换种植体(16颗失败;1.32%)和1157颗平台匹配种植体(13颗失败;1.12%)。平台转换种植体的MBL丢失少于平台匹配种植体(平均差异-0.29,95%可信区间-0.38至-0.19;P<0.00001)。随着随访时间的延长(P=0.001)以及种植体平台与基台之间不匹配程度的增加(P=0.001),观察到两种种植体之间MBL平均差异增大。由于缺乏满意的信息,未对“种植体失败”和“术后感染”结局进行Meta分析。由于纳入研究中存在未控制的混杂因素,且大多数研究随访期较短,本综述结果应谨慎解读。
近年来,平台匹配种植体是否比平台转换种植体更易失败和丢失更多边缘骨的问题受到越来越多的关注。随着治疗理念随时间变化,定期回顾不同概念对于改进技术和消除不必要的操作是必要的,这为优化治疗奠定基础。