Kalra Janvi, Dhawan Pankaj, Jain Neha
Postgraduate student, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Manav Rachna Dental College, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, India.
Professor and Department Head, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Manav Rachna Dental College, Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies, Faridabad, Haryana, India.
J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Jun;133(6):1462.e1-1462.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.036. Epub 2024 Aug 26.
How osseodensification osteotomy affects the implant stability and crestal bone level in patients requiring implant placement in low-density bone compared with conventional osteotomy is unclear.
This systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed how implant stability and crestal bone level vary in a low-density bone in osseodensification osteotomy and conventional osteotomy.
The SCOPUS, PUBMED, and Google Scholar databases were searched, along with a manual search, for articles published between January 2013 and January 2024. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed to select the studies for review. A total of 5 studies were included in this systematic review. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools were used to conduct the risk of assessment of the included articles, and forest plots were generated for the included articles (α=.05).
The data were assimilated from a small sample size of 109 patients and 198 implants. The meta-analysis found that osseodensification resulted in significantly higher implant stability quotient (P<.05) values at baseline and follow-up, while the crestal bone level changes were not found to be significant (P>.05) at baseline or on follow-up visits.
The osseodensification drilling protocol displayed an advantage over the conventional drilling protocol regarding higher primary stability and secondary stability, as well as bone expansion in low-density bone. No significant difference in crestal bone loss was found in either technique at baseline or at follow-up.
与传统截骨术相比，骨致密化截骨术如何影响需要在低密度骨中植入种植体的患者的种植体稳定性和嵴顶骨水平尚不清楚。
本系统评价和荟萃分析分析了在骨致密化截骨术和传统截骨术中，低密度骨中的种植体稳定性和嵴顶骨水平如何变化。
检索了SCOPUS、PUBMED和谷歌学术数据库，并进行了手动检索，以查找2013年1月至2024年1月期间发表的文章。遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南来选择进行综述的研究。本系统评价共纳入5项研究。使用乔安娜·布里格斯研究所（JBI）工具对纳入文章进行风险评估，并为纳入文章生成森林图（α = 0.05）。
数据来自109例患者和198颗种植体的小样本量。荟萃分析发现，骨致密化在基线和随访时导致种植体稳定性商数（P < 0.05）值显著更高，而在基线或随访时未发现嵴顶骨水平变化显著（P > 0.05）。
在更高的初期稳定性和二期稳定性以及低密度骨中的骨扩张方面，骨致密化钻孔方案显示出优于传统钻孔方案的优势。在基线或随访时，两种技术在嵴顶骨丢失方面均未发现显著差异。
