Doornewaard Ron, Christiaens Véronique, De Bruyn Hugo, Jacobsson Magnus, Cosyn Jan, Vervaeke Stijn, Jacquet Wolfgang
Specialist in training, Master student Periodontology, Department Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Dental School, Faculty Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University Belgium.
PhD student, Department Periodontology & Oral Implantology, Dental School, Faculty Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University Belgium.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Apr;19(2):372-399. doi: 10.1111/cid.12457. Epub 2016 Nov 15.
Publications from 2011 to 2015 were selected to evaluate effect of implant surface roughness on long-term bone loss as surrogate for peri-implantitis risk. 87 out of 2,566 papers reported the mean bone loss after at least 5 years of function. Estimation of the proportion of implants with bone loss above 1, 2, and 3 mm as well as analysis the effect of implant surface roughness, smoking, and history of periodontitis was performed. By means of the provided statistical information of bone loss (mean and standard deviation) the prevalence of implants with bone loss ranging from 1 to 3 mm was estimated. The bone loss was used as a surrogate parameter for "peri-implantitis" given the fact that "peri-implantitis" prevalence was not reported in most studies or when reported, the diagnostic criteria were unclear or of dubious quality. The outcome of this review suggests that peri-implant bone loss around minimally rough implant systems was statistically significant less in comparison to the moderately rough and rough implant systems. No statistically significant difference was observed between moderately rough and rough implant systems. The studies that compared implants with comparable design and different surface roughness, showed less average peri-implant bone loss around the less rough surfaces in the meta-analysis. However, due to the heterogeneity of the papers and the multifactorial cause for bone loss, the impact of surface roughness alone seems rather limited and of minimal clinical importance. Irrespective of surface topography or implant brand, the average weighted implant survival rate was 97.3% after 5 years or more of loading. If considering 3 mm bone loss after at least 5 years to represent the presence of "peri-implantitis," less than 5% of the implants were affected. The meta-analysis indicated that periodontal history and smoking habits yielded more bone loss.
选取2011年至2015年发表的文献，以评估种植体表面粗糙度对长期骨吸收的影响，作为种植体周围炎风险的替代指标。2566篇论文中有87篇报告了至少5年功能后的平均骨吸收情况。对骨吸收超过1mm、2mm和3mm的种植体比例进行了估计，并分析了种植体表面粗糙度、吸烟和牙周炎病史的影响。根据提供的骨吸收统计信息（均值和标准差），估计了骨吸收在1至3mm范围内的种植体患病率。鉴于大多数研究未报告“种植体周围炎”患病率，或者报告时诊断标准不明确或质量存疑，骨吸收被用作“种植体周围炎”的替代参数。该综述结果表明，与中等粗糙度和粗糙的种植体系统相比，微粗糙种植体系统周围的种植体周围骨吸收在统计学上显著更少。中等粗糙度和粗糙的种植体系统之间未观察到统计学上的显著差异。在荟萃分析中，比较设计相似但表面粗糙度不同的种植体的研究表明，表面粗糙度较小的种植体周围平均种植体周围骨吸收较少。然而，由于论文的异质性和骨吸收的多因素原因，单独表面粗糙度的影响似乎相当有限，临床重要性最小。无论表面形貌或种植体品牌如何，在加载5年或更长时间后，平均加权种植体存活率为97.3%。如果将至少5年后3mm的骨吸收视为“种植体周围炎”的存在，则受影响的种植体不到5%。荟萃分析表明，牙周病史和吸烟习惯会导致更多的骨吸收。
