Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Oral Surgery, College of Dentistry, University of Florida (UFL), Gainesville, FL.
J Prosthodont. 2019 Dec;28(9):958-968. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13104. Epub 2019 Oct 18.
To perform a systematic review on studies assessing clinical outcomes in patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading.
Data obtained from patient and clinical outcomes, as implant failure, success rate, survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss, were included on this review. The search was performed on databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled studies, and an adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for observational studies. All data were tabulated according to the time of loading: (1) immediate restoration/loading, (2) early loading, and (3) conventional loading.
From a total of 4027 studies identified through the three databases, six of them were randomized controlled trials, five of them were prospective observational studies, and another five were retrospective observational studies. In total, 5954 implants, 1294 patients and 1305 full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were included in this review. There was a wide heterogeneity among clinical studies regarding the study design and treatment procedures. Thus, pooled estimates were not performed in order to avoid potential biases. The methodological assessment by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale showed a moderate quality of observational studies. Regarding the RCTs studies, all of them presented at least one element of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias.
There is evidence of high survival-success implant rate (95-100%) for either loading protocols (immediate restoration/loading, early loading, and conventional loading). However, careful attention must be taken by clinician when interpreting the results reported in clinical studies. Future studies should be performed using standardized methodology in order to determine the true predictability regarding immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols.
对根据加载时间评估完全弓固定种植体支持修复患者临床结果的研究进行系统评价。
本综述纳入了患者和临床结果(包括种植体失败、成功率、存活率、生物学并发症、技术并发症、机械并发症和边缘骨丢失)的数据。检索了 PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane 数据库。采用 Cochrane 协作工具评估随机对照研究的偏倚风险,采用改良的 Newcastle-Ottawa 量表评估观察性研究的偏倚风险。所有数据均根据加载时间进行制表:(1)即刻修复/加载,(2)早期加载,和(3)常规加载。
从三个数据库共检索到 4027 篇文章,其中 6 篇为随机对照试验,5 篇为前瞻性观察研究,另外 5 篇为回顾性观察研究。共有 5954 个种植体、1294 名患者和 1305 个全弓固定种植体支持修复体纳入本综述。由于研究设计和治疗程序存在广泛的异质性,因此未进行汇总估计以避免潜在的偏倚。改良的 Newcastle-Ottawa 量表的方法学评估显示,观察性研究的质量为中等。关于 RCT 研究,根据 Cochrane 协作工具评估偏倚风险,所有研究都至少存在一个偏倚因素。
无论采用哪种加载方案(即刻修复/加载、早期加载和常规加载),都有证据表明种植体的高存活率-成功率(95-100%)。然而,临床医生在解释临床研究报告的结果时必须谨慎。未来的研究应采用标准化的方法学,以确定即刻、早期和常规加载方案的真正可预测性。