Lee Jungwon, Park Dueun, Koo Ki-Tae, Seol Yang-Jo, Lee Yong-Moo
a Department of Periodontology and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry , Seoul National University , Seoul , Republic of Korea.
Acta Odontol Scand. 2019 Mar;77(2):99-106. doi: 10.1080/00016357.2018.1508743. Epub 2019 Jan 2.
This systematic review evaluates implant survival and the change in the width of the horizontal ridge following immediate implant placement with or without a regenerative procedure.
An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the LILACS database of the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials was performed, along with a manual search, up to April 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) with >10 subjects were eligible for this systematic review. A meta-analysis of the risk difference in implant failure between the regenerative and non-regenerative procedure groups was performed using a fixed-effect model. In addition, a meta-analysis of the change in alveolar bone width was conducted using a fixed-effect model.
Seven studies (six RCTs and one CCT) were included. A meta-analysis of three studies found no statistically significant risk difference in implant failure between the regenerative procedure and non-regenerative procedure groups. A meta-analysis of four studies showed that horizontal shrinkage of the alveolar ridge in the site of immediate implant placement was statistically significantly lower with the regenerative procedure than without it (<1 year follow up studies: weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.75 mm, 95% confidence interval 0.41-1.09, p < .00001; ≥1 year follow up study: WMD 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.52-1.91, p = .00006; total: WMD 0.84 mm, 95% confidence interval 0.53-1.14, p < .00001).
Within the study limitations, immediate implant placement with a regenerative procedure showed similar implant survival and less shrinkage of the ridge width than immediate implant placement without a regenerative procedure. Due to the high risk of bias and small sample sizes of the included studies, further clinical studies are warranted to draw definitive conclusions.
本系统评价评估即刻种植时采用或不采用骨再生程序后的种植体存留率以及水平向牙槽嵴宽度的变化。
截至2018年4月,对MEDLINE、EMBASE以及Cochrane对照试验中心注册库的LILACS数据库进行了电子检索,并进行了手工检索。纳入10例以上受试者的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照临床试验(CCT)符合本系统评价的要求。采用固定效应模型对骨再生程序组和非骨再生程序组种植体失败的风险差异进行Meta分析。此外,采用固定效应模型对牙槽骨宽度的变化进行Meta分析。
共纳入7项研究(6项RCT和1项CCT)。对3项研究进行的Meta分析发现,骨再生程序组和非骨再生程序组之间种植体失败的风险差异无统计学意义。对4项研究进行的Meta分析表明,即刻种植部位采用骨再生程序时,牙槽嵴水平向退缩在统计学上显著低于未采用骨再生程序时(随访时间<1年的研究:加权均数差(WMD)0.75mm,95%置信区间0.41 - 1.09,p <.00001;随访时间≥1年的研究:WMD 1.22,95%置信区间0.52 - 1.91,p =.00006;总计:WMD 0.84mm,95%置信区间0.53 - 1.14,p <.00001)。
在研究局限性范围内,即刻种植时采用骨再生程序与未采用骨再生程序相比,种植体存留率相似,但牙槽嵴宽度退缩较小。由于纳入研究存在较高的偏倚风险且样本量较小,因此需要进一步的临床研究以得出确切结论。