Department of Prosthodontics Dentistry, Hubei-MOST KLOS & KLOBM, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Centre for Evidence-Based Stomatology, Hubei-MOST KLOS & KLOBM, School & Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Division of Dentistry, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine, and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2023 Feb;124(1S):101385. doi: 10.1016/j.jormas.2023.101385. Epub 2023 Jan 13.
To compare the effects of bone grafting materials, collagen-infused grafting materials, and no grafting materials on the soft and hard tissue outcomes when an immediate implant is placed.
In addition to hand searching, electronic searches were performed in Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Only RCTs were included in our review. The Cochrane ROB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias (ROB). Two subgroups were used to evaluate implant failure rate, buccal bone resorption, soft tissue thickness, and esthetic scores. In the meta-analysis, both the fixed-effects model and the random-effects model were employed.
7 RCTs were selected after screening 580 studies, and 205 patients were included in the review, with 279 implants. Two RCTs were at low bias of risk, three were at moderate bias, and two were deemed at high risk of bias. The failure rate (95% CI: 0.17 to 11.84) and soft tissue thickness were not significantly different between collagen with bone grafting materials and without bone grafting materials. On the basis of the failure rate and buccal bone thickness, there was no significant difference between collagen with bone grafting materials and bone grafting materials. While we found collagen with bone grafting materials could have a significant advantage on the buccal bone thickness (MD: -0.43,95% CI -0.72 to -0.41) and esthetic outcome (MD: -1.23,95% CI -1.90 to -0.55).
In the statement of immediate implant implantation, the thickness of the buccal bone and esthetic outcomes did significantly benefit from bone grafting materials with collagen inserted in the "jumping gap".
比较骨移植材料、富含胶原的移植物材料和不使用移植物材料对即时植入物放置时软硬组织结局的影响。
除了手工检索外，还在 Pubmed、Embase 和 Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库（CENTRAL）进行了电子检索。我们的综述仅纳入 RCT。使用 Cochrane ROB 2.0 工具评估偏倚风险（ROB）。使用两个亚组评估种植体失败率、颊侧骨吸收、软组织厚度和美学评分。在荟萃分析中，同时使用固定效应模型和随机效应模型。
筛选 580 项研究后，共选择了 7 项 RCT，纳入了 205 名患者，共 279 个种植体。其中 2 项 RCT 偏倚风险低，3 项为中度偏倚，2 项为高偏倚风险。胶原与骨移植材料和无骨移植材料之间的失败率（95%CI：0.17 至 11.84）和软组织厚度无显著差异。基于失败率和颊侧骨厚度，胶原与骨移植材料和骨移植材料之间无显著差异。虽然我们发现胶原与骨移植材料在颊侧骨厚度（MD：-0.43，95%CI -0.72 至 -0.41）和美学结果（MD：-1.23，95%CI -1.90 至 -0.55）方面有显著优势。
在即时种植体植入的陈述中，骨移植材料与胶原结合的植入物在“跳跃间隙”中确实显著有利于颊侧骨厚度和美学结果。
