De Angelis Paolo, Manicone Paolo Francesco, Liguori Margherita Giorgia, D'addona Antonio, Ciolfi Alessandro, Cavalcanti Camilla, Piccirillo Davide, Rella Edoardo
Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Department of Head and Neck, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit, A. Gemelli University Hospital Foundation (IRCCS) Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.
Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
J Prosthodont. 2024 Dec;33(9):841-851. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13926. Epub 2024 Aug 20.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients rehabilitated using a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension or two implants supporting two single crowns.
Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, a systematic review of relevant literature published from 2000 was conducted in the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases. Moreover, a manual search was performed. A meta-analysis of the resulting data was carried out. Peri-implant marginal bone level, probing pocket depth, prevalence of technical and mechanical complications, implant survival rate, and prosthesis survival rate were assessed.
The meta-analysis showed a non-statistically significant change in the peri-implant marginal bone level and probing pocket depth in the cantilever group and revealed a non-significant prevalence of technical complications, showing a 27% rate in the cantilever group. The analysis of the prosthesis survival rate in the cantilever group showed a mean survival rate of 99% while the comparison of the implant survival between the two groups revealed an odds ratio of 0.50.
The use of a single implant supporting a crown with a cantilever extension does not result in lower implant survival rate if compared with two implants supporting two single crowns. Moreover, a high prosthesis survival rate was observed in the cantilever group even if the high prevalence of complications should be carefully considered by the clinician.
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是分析使用单个种植体支持带悬臂延伸的冠修复或两个种植体支持两个单冠修复的患者的临床和影像学结果。
按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)2020指南,在Cochrane图书馆、Scopus和MEDLINE数据库中对2000年以来发表的相关文献进行系统评价。此外,还进行了手动检索。对所得数据进行荟萃分析。评估种植体周围边缘骨水平、探诊袋深度、技术和机械并发症的发生率、种植体生存率和修复体生存率。
荟萃分析显示,悬臂组种植体周围边缘骨水平和探诊袋深度无统计学意义的变化,技术并发症发生率无显著差异,悬臂组为27%。悬臂组修复体生存率分析显示平均生存率为99%,而两组种植体生存率比较显示优势比为0.50。
与两个种植体支持两个单冠相比,使用单个种植体支持带悬臂延伸的冠不会导致更低的种植体生存率。此外,悬臂组观察到较高的修复体生存率,尽管临床医生应仔细考虑并发症的高发生率。