Camps-Font Octavi, Rubianes-Porta Laura, Valmaseda-Castellón Eduard, Jung Ronald E, Gay-Escoda Cosme, Figueiredo Rui
Associate Professor, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Graduate student, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Sep;130(3):327-340. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.029. Epub 2021 Nov 12.
The implant abutment connection interface has been considered one of the major factors affecting the outcome of implant therapy. However, drawbacks of traditional meta-analyses are the inability to compare more than 2 treatments at a time, which complicates the decision-making process for dental clinicians, and the lack of a network meta-analysis.
The purpose of this network meta-analysis was to assess whether the implant abutment connection influences the outcome of implant-supported prostheses.
An electronic search was undertaken to identify all randomized clinical trials comparing the effect of at least 2 different implant abutment connection designs published from 2009 up to May 2020. Outcome variables were implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complication rates at 12 months after prosthetic loading. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and risk of bias assessed. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses based on a multivariate random-effects meta-regression were performed to assess the comparisons (α=.05 for all analyses).
For peri-implant marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications, conical interfaces were determined to be the most effective, with significant differences when compared with external hexagonal connections (P=.011 and P=.038, respectively). No significant differences were found among the implant abutment connections in terms of survival and biologic complications (P>.05 in all direct, indirect, and mixed comparisons).
After 1 year of loading, conical connections showed lower marginal bone loss and fewer prosthetic complications than external hexagonal connections. However, the implant abutment connection design had no influence on the implant survival and biologic complication rates.
种植体基台连接界面被认为是影响种植治疗效果的主要因素之一。然而,传统荟萃分析的缺点是一次无法比较超过2种治疗方法,这使牙科临床医生的决策过程变得复杂,并且缺乏网络荟萃分析。
本网络荟萃分析的目的是评估种植体基台连接是否会影响种植支持修复体的效果。
进行电子检索,以识别2009年至2020年5月发表的所有比较至少2种不同种植体基台连接设计效果的随机临床试验。结果变量为修复体加载后12个月时的种植体存活率、种植体周围边缘骨丢失以及生物学和修复并发症发生率。提取相关信息,并评估质量和偏倚风险。基于多变量随机效应荟萃回归进行成对荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析,以评估比较结果(所有分析的α = 0.05)。
对于种植体周围边缘骨丢失和修复并发症,确定锥形界面最有效,与外部六边形连接相比有显著差异(分别为P = 0.011和P = 0.038)。在种植体基台连接之间,在存活率和生物学并发症方面未发现显著差异(所有直接、间接和混合比较中的P>0.05)。
加载1年后,锥形连接显示出比外部六边形连接更低的边缘骨丢失和更少的修复并发症。然而,种植体基台连接设计对种植体存活率和生物学并发症发生率没有影响。