State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
PeerJ. 2023 Mar 17;11:e15010. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15010. eCollection 2023.
To quantitatively assess and compare the clinical outcomes, including survival rate, success rate, and peri-implant indices of titanium and zirconium implants in randomized controlled trials.
The electronic databases searched included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported the effects of zirconium implants on primary outcomes, such as survival rate, success rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), and probing pocket depth (PPD), compared to titanium implants were included in this review. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the records, assessed their quality, and extracted the data from the included studies.
A total of four studies from six publications reviewed were included. Two of the comparative studies were assessed at minimal risk of bias. Zirconium implants may have a lower survival rate (risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, CI [0.82-1.02], = 0.100, = 0%) and a significantly lower success rate than titanium implants (RR = 0.87, CI [0.78-0.98], = 0.030, = 0%). In addition, there was no difference between the titanium and zirconium implants in terms of MBL, PPD, bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), and pink esthetic score (PES) (for MBL, MD = 0.25, CI [0.02-0.49], = 0.033, = 0%; for PPD, MD = -0.07, CI [-0.19-0.05], = 0.250, = 31%).
Zirconium implants may have higher failure rates due to their mechanical weakness. Zirconium implants should be strictly assessed before they enter the market. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.
定量评估和比较钛和氧化锆种植体的临床结果，包括生存率、成功率和种植体周围指数，这些结果来自于随机对照试验。
检索的电子数据库包括 Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库（CENTRAL）、Medline Ovid、EMBASE 和 Web of Science。本综述纳入了报告氧化锆种植体与钛种植体相比在主要结局（如生存率、成功率、边缘骨丧失（MBL）和探诊袋深度（PPD））方面效果的随机对照试验（RCT）。两名评审员独立筛选和选择记录、评估其质量，并从纳入的研究中提取数据。
共有六项研究中的四项研究被纳入综述。其中两项比较研究被评估为低偏倚风险。氧化锆种植体的生存率可能较低（风险比（RR）=0.91，CI [0.82-1.02]， = 0.100， = 0%），成功率也明显低于钛种植体（RR = 0.87，CI [0.78-0.98]， = 0.030， = 0%）。此外，在 MBL、PPD、探诊出血（BOP）、菌斑指数（PI）和粉红色美学评分（PES）方面，钛和氧化锆种植体之间没有差异（对于 MBL，MD = 0.25，CI [0.02-0.49]， = 0.033， = 0%；对于 PPD，MD = -0.07，CI [-0.19-0.05]， = 0.250， = 31%）。
由于机械强度较弱，氧化锆种植体可能有更高的失败率。在进入市场之前，应对氧化锆种植体进行严格评估。需要进一步的研究来证实这些发现。
