Graduate student, Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences, Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, College of Stomatology, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, PR China.
Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, PR China.
J Prosthet Dent. 2020 Nov;124(5):530-538. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.09.030. Epub 2020 Jan 25.
Whether implant-supported crowns on short or standard implants have similar clinical outcomes in the posterior alveolar bone is unclear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes, including survival rates, marginal bone loss (MBL), and complications associated with short implants and standard implants supporting a single crown in the posterior alveolar bone.
This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) principles and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018112978). The authors identified eligible trials published before August 2019 by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the study, and quality assessment was performed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Relevant information was extracted by using a standardized form, and a meta-analysis was performed by using a software program.
A total of 1954 references were identified. Five eligible trials were included in the quantitative synthesis. The survival rate of the short implants (≤6 mm) was similar to that of longer implants (>6 mm) in the short term (P=.72; RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97-1.02); however, long-term follow-up showed that short implants had a poorer survival rate than standard implants (P=.01; RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.90-0.99). There was no significant difference in the MBL (P=.94; MD: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.11).
The present study suggested that, although short implants have a higher crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio, they do not affect MBL. However, long-term follow-up comparisons indicated that short implants (≤6 mm) have a poorer survival rate than standard implants (>6 mm) (P=.01). Nonsplinted crowns supported by short implants should be used with caution in the posterior alveolar bone.
在牙槽骨后区，短种植体和标准种植体支持的单冠的临床结果是否相似，目前尚不清楚。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较短种植体和标准种植体在牙槽骨后区支持单冠的临床结果，包括生存率、边缘骨丧失（MBL）和相关并发症。
本系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）原则，并在 PROSPERO（CRD42018112978）上进行了注册。作者通过搜索 PubMed、EMBASE 和 Cochrane Library，确定了 2019 年 8 月之前发表的合格试验。仅纳入研究中的随机对照试验（RCT），并使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具进行质量评估。使用标准化表格提取相关信息，并使用软件程序进行荟萃分析。
共确定了 1954 条参考文献。有 5 项合格试验纳入定量综合分析。短期随访时，短种植体（≤6 mm）的生存率与较长种植体（>6 mm）相似（P=.72；RR：0.99；95% CI：0.97-1.02）；然而，长期随访显示，短种植体的生存率低于标准种植体（P=.01；RR：0.94；95% CI：0.90-0.99）。MBL 无显著差异（P=.94；MD：0.00；95% CI：-0.10 至 0.11）。
本研究表明，尽管短种植体具有较高的冠-种植体（C/I）比值，但它们不会影响 MBL。然而，长期随访比较表明，短种植体（≤6 mm）的生存率低于标准种植体（>6 mm）（P=.01）。在后牙槽骨中，应谨慎使用短种植体支持的非桥接冠。
