Department of Stomatology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Department of Dental Implantology, Beijing Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
J Prosthodont. 2021 Jun;30(5):401-411. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13333. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the effect of rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss, compared to machined smooth neck implants.
Literature searches were performed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library) (up to March 04, 2020), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1966 to March 04, 2020), and EMBASE (1980 to March 04, 2020), and reference lists of relevant manuscripts and relevant systematic reviews. Grey literature was sought using Grey Literature Net-Work Service (www.opengrey.eu) and The Grey Literature Report (www.greylit.org). Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials that compared the effects of machined smooth neck implants versus rough threaded neck implants on marginal bone loss were included. Two review authors selected studies, assessed trial quality, and extracted data from included studies independently. The meta-analysis was carried out with Review Manager v5.3 software that compared marginal bone loss between rough threaded neck implants and machined smooth neck implants.
This review included 8 manuscripts (2 randomized controlled trials and 6 controlled clinical trials) from 6 clinical studies. The marginal bone loss around the rough threaded neck implants was significantly less than that around machined smooth neck ones (MD: -0.43 mm, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.22 mm; p < 0.0001). In the subgroup with different platform connections, less marginal bone loss was observed around the rough threaded neck implants with platform switching (MD: -0.67 mm, 95% CI: -0.87 to -0.48 mm; p < 0.00001) or with regular platform (MD: -0.28 mm, 95% CI: -0.39 to -0.18 mm; p < 0.00001). The statistical analysis of the subgroups with functional loading for 3 or 6 months (MD: -0.39 mm; 95% CI: -0.61 to -0.18 mm; p = 0.0003) and 1 year or longer (MD: -0.43 mm, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.22 mm; p < 0.0001) suggested that the rough threaded neck implants helped to reduce marginal bone loss.
The results of this review suggested that rough threaded neck implants may be helpful in maintaining the amount of marginal bone around implants. Larger sample size, longer follow-up periods and well-conducted randomized controlled trials are necessary to further prove the validity of the findings.
本荟萃分析旨在评估粗糙螺纹颈部植入物与机械光滑颈部植入物相比对边缘骨丢失的影响。
在 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库(Cochrane 图书馆)(截至 2020 年 3 月 4 日)、MEDLINE(PubMed)(1966 年至 2020 年 3 月 4 日)和 EMBASE(1980 年至 2020 年 3 月 4 日)进行文献检索,并通过 Grey Literature Net-Work Service(www.opengrey.eu)和 The Grey Literature Report(www.greylit.org)搜索灰色文献。纳入比较机械光滑颈部植入物与粗糙螺纹颈部植入物对边缘骨丢失影响的随机对照试验和对照临床试验。两位综述作者独立选择研究、评估试验质量并从纳入的研究中提取数据。使用 Review Manager v5.3 软件进行荟萃分析,比较粗糙螺纹颈部植入物和机械光滑颈部植入物之间的边缘骨丢失。
本综述纳入了来自 6 项临床研究的 8 份文献(2 项随机对照试验和 6 项对照临床试验)。粗糙螺纹颈部植入物周围的边缘骨丢失明显少于机械光滑颈部植入物(MD:-0.43mm,95%CI:-0.65 至-0.22mm;p<0.0001)。在具有不同平台连接的亚组中,具有平台转换(MD:-0.67mm,95%CI:-0.87 至-0.48mm;p<0.00001)或常规平台(MD:-0.28mm,95%CI:-0.39 至-0.18mm;p<0.00001)的粗糙螺纹颈部植入物周围的边缘骨丢失较少。对 3 个月或 6 个月(MD:-0.39mm;95%CI:-0.61 至-0.18mm;p=0.0003)和 1 年或更长时间(MD:-0.43mm,95%CI:-0.65 至-0.22mm;p<0.0001)功能负荷亚组的统计分析表明,粗糙螺纹颈部植入物有助于减少边缘骨丢失。
本综述的结果表明,粗糙螺纹颈部植入物可能有助于维持植入物周围的边缘骨量。需要更大的样本量、更长的随访期和精心设计的随机对照试验来进一步证明这些发现的有效性。