Reis-Neta Gilda Rocha Dos, Cerqueira Gabriel Felipe Marino, Ribeiro Michele Costa Oliveira, Magno Marcela Baraúna, Vásquez Guido Artemio Maranón, Maia Lucianne Cople, Del Bel Cury Altair A, Marcello-Machado Raissa M
PhD student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School (FOP), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
MSc student, Department of Prosthodontics and Periodontology, Piracicaba Dental School (FOP), University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Oct 3. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.08.019.
Although tapered and cylindrical implants have been widely used, a consensus on which macrogeometry offers better clinical performance is lacking.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of different macrogeometries (tapered and cylindrical) on the clinical performance of dental implants.
The study was registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022347436). A search for clinical studies was conducted in 6 databases to identify randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of tapered and cylindrical implants placed in the maxilla or mandible of adult patients that had at least 1 clinical performance parameter as outcome. The risk of bias was evaluated using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool (RoB 2) tool. Meta-analyses on implant survival and success, marginal bone loss (MBL), implant stability (ISQ), and torque insertion (TI) were performed, with the certainty of evidence evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) checklist.
Of the 18 included studies, 7 had a low risk, 6 had some concerns, and 5 had a high risk of bias. Meta-analyses of survival (RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01]; P=.38; I2=0%), implant success (RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.13] P=.08 I2=0%), 1-month MBL (MD -0.11 [-0.33, 0.10] P=.31 I2=98%), 3 months MBL (MD -0.21 [-0.27, 0.16] P=.26 I2=98%), 6 months MBL (MD -0.29 [-0.60, 0.01] P=.06 I=74%), 1-year MBL (MD 0.01 [-0.07, 0.09] P=.77 I2=98%) and after 2 years MBL (MD -0.04 [-0.14, 0.07] P=.52 I2=0%), ISQ at implant installation (MD 0.35 [-0.72, 1.42] P=.52 I2=0%), %), after 2 months (MD 0.90 [-1.08, 2.87] P=.37 I2=0%) and at 1 year (MD -0.02 [-1.07, 1.03] P=.97 I2=0%), and insertion torque (MD 3.10 [-1.71, 7.92] P=.21 I2=80%) were statistically similar. However, tapered implants showed higher ISQ than cylindrical implants after 3 months (MD 1.20 [0.39, 2.01] P=.004 I2=17%). The certainty of evidence for the analyzed parameters ranged from high to very low.
Both macrogeometries present good clinical performance, with certainty of evidence ranging from high to very low. Tapered implants showed better secondary stability at 3 months after implant installation, but with low certainty of evidence.
尽管锥形和圆柱形种植体已被广泛使用,但对于哪种宏观几何形状能提供更好的临床性能仍缺乏共识。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估不同宏观几何形状(锥形和圆柱形)对牙种植体临床性能的影响。
该研究已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)数据库(CRD42022347436)中注册。在6个数据库中进行临床研究检索,以识别随机对照临床试验,这些试验评估了植入成年患者上颌或下颌的锥形和圆柱形种植体的有效性,且至少有1个临床性能参数作为结局指标。使用修订后的Cochrane偏倚风险工具(RoB 2)评估偏倚风险。对种植体的存留率和成功率、边缘骨吸收(MBL)、种植体稳定性(ISQ)和植入扭矩(TI)进行荟萃分析,并使用推荐分级、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)清单评估证据的确定性。
纳入的18项研究中,7项风险较低,6项存在一些担忧,5项存在高偏倚风险。种植体存留率(RR 0.99 [0.97, 1.01];P = 0.38;I² = 0%)、种植体成功率(RR 1.06 [0.99, 1.13];P = 0.08;I² = 0%)、1个月时的MBL(MD -0.11 [-0.33, 0.10];P = 0.31;I² = 98%)、3个月时的MBL(MD -0.21 [-0.27, 0.16];P = 0.26;I² = 98%)、6个月时的MBL(MD -0.29 [-0.60, 0.01];P = 0.06;I² = 74%)、1年时的MBL(MD 0.01 [-0.07, 0.09];P = 0.77;I² = 98%)以及2年后的MBL(MD -0.04 [-0.14, 0.07];P = 0.52;I² = 0%)、种植体植入时的ISQ(MD 0.35 [-0.72, 1.42];P = 0.52;I² = 0%)、2个月后(MD 0.90 [-1.08, 2.87];P = 0.37;I² = 0%)和1年时(MD -0.02 [-1.07, 1.03];P = 0.97;I² = 0%)以及植入扭矩(MD 3.10 [-