Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Sep/Oct;33(5):553-564. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6726.
To systematically review the literature comparing marginal bone loss (MBL) and pink esthetic scores of implants with convergent or concave transmucosal profiles vs divergent or parallel profiles.
A PICO question was defined, and an electronic search was carried out in the MEDLINE/PubMed and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases. Studies documenting type of transmucosal profile (either tissue-level profiles or abutments) and soft and/or hard tissue outcomes of implants were considered eligible. Studies were selected on the basis of the inclusion criteria and quality assessments. A meta-analysis with subgroup analyses was performed.
Five papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and four were eligible for meta-analysis. Significantly less MBL was found in concave/convergent groups, with a mean difference of 0.772 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.450 to 1.095; P < .001). In the subgroup analyses for platform-switching and platform-matching connections, a significant effect in favor of concave/convergent was detected, with a standardized difference in means of 1.135 (95% CI: 0.688 to 1.583, P < .001) when platform switching was considered. No significant effects were found for platform-matching connections.
Within the limitations of this review, it is suggested that concave/convergent implant transmucosal profiles result in less MBL. No statistically significant results were obtained for soft tissue-related outcomes or for the platform-matching connection subgroup.
系统回顾比较具有会聚或凹形穿黏膜轮廓与发散或平行轮廓的种植体的边缘骨丧失(MBL)和粉红色美学评分的文献。
定义了一个 PICO 问题,并在 MEDLINE/PubMed 和 Cochrane 口腔健康组数据库中进行了电子搜索。记录穿黏膜轮廓类型(组织水平轮廓或基台)以及种植体软硬组织结果的研究被认为符合条件。根据纳入标准和质量评估选择研究。进行了荟萃分析和亚组分析。
有五篇论文符合纳入标准,其中四篇可进行荟萃分析。凹形/会聚组的 MBL 明显较少,平均差异为 0.772(95%置信区间:0.450 至 1.095;P <.001)。在平台转换和平台匹配连接的亚组分析中,检测到有利于凹形/会聚的显著效果,标准化均值差异为 1.135(95%置信区间:0.688 至 1.583,P <.001),当考虑平台转换时。对于平台匹配连接,未发现有统计学意义的效果。
在本综述的限制范围内,建议凹形/会聚种植体穿黏膜轮廓可导致较少的 MBL。未获得与软组织相关结果或平台匹配连接亚组相关的统计学显著结果。