Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021 Apr;23(2):216-227. doi: 10.1111/cid.12982. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
Digitally customized abutments are increasingly used in contemporary implant prosthodontics.
This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at comparing the peri-implant clinical outcomes of digitally customized and prefabricated abutments.
The search strategies included electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane clinical trials database) and related journals up to September, 2020. A qualitative and quantitative synthesis was performed on data extracted from the included studies.
Three RCTs (number of patients = 120; number of dental implants = 120) and two prospective cohort studies (number of patients = 144; number of dental implants = 144) with one to three-year follow-up periods were included. The quantitative analyses did not demonstrate a significant difference between digitally customized and prefabricated abutments for peri-implant pocket depth (P = 0.62), plaque index (P = 0.67), bleeding on probing (P = 0.43), keratinized mucosa width (P = 0.75), and pink aesthetic score (P = 0.30) at one-year follow-up visit. The qualitative analyses for marginal bone level change, calculus accumulation, implant survival rate, implant success rate, white aesthetic score, and patient-reported outcomes did not demonstrate a significant difference between two groups during 1 to 3-year follow-up visits.
The current data do not provide evidence of significant differences between two abutment fabrication methods in terms of peri-implant clinical outcomes within short-term period (CRD42020170807).
数字化定制基台在当代种植修复领域的应用日益增多。
本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在比较数字化定制基台和预制基台的种植体周围临床效果。
检索策略包括电子数据库(PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Cochrane 临床试验数据库)和相关期刊,检索截至 2020 年 9 月。对纳入研究中提取的数据进行定性和定量综合分析。
共纳入 3 项 RCT(患者人数=120;种植体数量=120)和 2 项前瞻性队列研究(患者人数=144;种植体数量=144),随访时间为 1 至 3 年。定量分析显示,在种植体周围袋深度(P=0.62)、菌斑指数(P=0.67)、探诊出血(P=0.43)、角化黏膜宽度(P=0.75)和粉红色美学评分(P=0.30)方面,数字化定制基台和预制基台在 1 年随访时无显著差异。定性分析在边缘骨水平变化、牙石积累、种植体存活率、种植体成功率、白色美学评分和患者报告的结果方面,在 1 至 3 年随访期间,两组之间也没有显示出显著差异。
目前的数据在短期内(CRD42020170807)并未提供两种基台制作方法在种植体周围临床效果方面存在显著差异的证据。