Moustafa Ali Ramy Moustafa, Alqutaibi Ahmed Yaseen, El-Din Gomaa Amr Salah, Abdallah Mohamed Farouk
Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Jan/Feb;31(1):15-22. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5315.
To compare prosthesis and implant failures and marginal bone loss (MBL) resulting from submerged vs nonsubmerged dental implant protocols.
Electronic and manual searches of two databases (MEDLINE [PubMed] and Cochrane) were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing submerged to nonsubmerged dental implant protocols. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers, and meta-analyses were performed for the included RCTs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of included studies.
Eight RCTs were identified, and six were included. Four of the included studies were considered to be at high risk of bias, one at unclear risk, and one at low risk. The meta-analysis for studies reporting MBL revealed significantly more bone loss around submerged implants (I = 0%, P = .04; mean difference: 0.12; 95% confidence interval: 0.00, 0.24); however, there were no differences in implant or prosthesis failures between the two interventions.
Two conclusions were made: (1) There were no differences between the two interventions regarding implant or prosthesis failures, and (2) submerged implants exhibited statistically significantly more MBL, but this difference was not clinically relevant. These conclusions should be interpreted with caution, since the present review is underpowered and the included RCTs were considered to be at high risk of bias.
比较潜入式与非潜入式牙种植方案导致的种植体和修复体失败以及边缘骨丢失（MBL）情况。
对两个数据库（MEDLINE [PubMed] 和Cochrane）进行电子和手动检索，以识别比较潜入式与非潜入式牙种植方案的随机对照试验（RCT）。数据由两名审阅者独立提取，并对纳入的RCT进行荟萃分析。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的质量。
共识别出8项RCT，纳入6项。纳入的研究中，4项被认为存在高偏倚风险，1项风险不明，1项为低风险。报告MBL的研究的荟萃分析显示，潜入式种植体周围的骨丢失明显更多（I = 0%，P = .04；平均差异：0.12；95%置信区间：0.00，0.24）；然而，两种干预措施在种植体或修复体失败方面没有差异。
得出两个结论：（1）两种干预措施在种植体或修复体失败方面没有差异；（2）潜入式种植体的MBL在统计学上明显更多，但这种差异在临床上并不相关。由于本综述的效能不足且纳入的RCT被认为存在高偏倚风险，这些结论应谨慎解读。
