Doolgindachbaporn Gintawat, Ongthiemsak Chakree, Ruengrungsom Chirayu
Dental Resident, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Prince of Songkla University, Hat Yai, Songkhla, Thailand.
J Prosthet Dent. 2025 May 19. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.04.032.
Despite extensive research on the individual factors associated with marginal bone changes around cement-retained implant-supported crowns, there remains a substantial knowledge gap concerning the cumulative impact of multiple factors on this outcome.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify factors associated with marginal bone changes around cement-retained implant-supported crowns and to compare these bone changes with those of screw-retained implant-supported crowns.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases before November 2024, supplemented by a manual search of relevant reference lists. Two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. The included studies involved bone-level dental implants with platform-switching and internal connection designs supporting cement-retained crowns adjacent to natural teeth. Relevant data were extracted and analyzed using meta-regression to identify significant factors influencing marginal bone changes. Pairwise meta-analysis was performed to compare the mean marginal bone changes between cement- and screw-retained implant-supported crowns.
Thirty-one studies, comprising 17 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 14 prospective nonrandomized studies, were included in the analysis. Meta-regression analysis revealed that mandibular implant placement was associated with greater bone loss compared with maxillary implant placement. Additionally, baseline bone measurements made at implant loading were linked to less bone loss than those made at implant placement. Certain loading and placement protocols demonstrated lower bone loss, while glass ionomer, zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, and resin cements were associated with less bone loss compared with zinc oxide cement (P<.05). Over a period of 6 months to 7.5 years, the pooled mean marginal bone change was 0.201 mm (95%CI: 0.147, 0.256) for cement-retained crowns, while for the screw-retained crowns it was 0.105 mm (95%CI: 0.058, 0.151). However, no significant difference in mean marginal bone change was observed between the 2 groups (P=.888).
The findings indicated that several factors significantly impacted marginal bone loss, including implant placement site, baseline marginal bone measurement, implant placement and loading protocols, and cement type. Cement-retained crowns exhibited statistically similar bone loss compared with screw-retained crowns.
尽管对与水泥固位种植体支持冠周围边缘骨变化相关的个体因素进行了广泛研究,但关于多种因素对这一结果的累积影响仍存在重大知识空白。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是确定与水泥固位种植体支持冠周围边缘骨变化相关的因素,并将这些骨变化与螺丝固位种植体支持冠的骨变化进行比较。
在2024年11月之前,在PubMed、Embase和Scopus数据库中进行了全面的文献检索,并辅以对相关参考文献列表的手动检索。两名独立的评审员筛选研究、提取数据并评估研究质量。纳入的研究涉及具有平台转换和内部连接设计的骨水平牙种植体,这些种植体支持与天然牙相邻的水泥固位冠。提取相关数据并使用荟萃回归进行分析,以确定影响边缘骨变化的显著因素。进行成对荟萃分析以比较水泥固位和螺丝固位种植体支持冠之间的平均边缘骨变化。
分析纳入了31项研究,包括17项随机对照试验(RCT)和14项前瞻性非随机研究。荟萃回归分析显示,与上颌种植体植入相比,下颌种植体植入与更大的骨丢失相关。此外,在种植体加载时进行的基线骨测量与在种植体植入时进行的测量相比,与较少的骨丢失相关。某些加载和植入方案显示骨丢失较低,而与氧化锌水门汀相比,玻璃离子水门汀、磷酸锌水门汀、聚羧酸锌水门汀和树脂水门汀与较少的骨丢失相关(P<0.05)。在6个月至7.5年的时间里,水泥固位冠的汇总平均边缘骨变化为0.201毫米(95%CI:0.147,0.256),而螺丝固位冠的汇总平均边缘骨变化为0.105毫米(95%CI:0.058,0.151)。然而,两组之间在平均边缘骨变化方面未观察到显著差异(P=0.888)。
研究结果表明,几个因素对边缘骨丢失有显著影响,包括种植体植入部位、基线边缘骨测量、种植体植入和加载方案以及水门汀类型。与螺丝固位冠相比,水泥固位冠在统计学上显示出相似的骨丢失。