当前位置: X-MOL 学术J. Clin. Periodontol. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Short (≤6 mm) compared with ≥10‐mm dental implants in different clinical scenarios: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta‐analysis, trial sequential analysis and quality of evidence grading
Journal of Clinical Periodontology ( IF 5.8 ) Pub Date : 2024-05-20 , DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13981
Andrea Ravidà 1 , Matteo Serroni 1, 2 , Wenche S Borgnakke 1, 3 , Mario Romandini 4 , I-Ching Izzie Wang 5 , Claudia Arena 6 , Marco Annunziata 7 , Gennaro Cecoro 7 , Muhammad H A Saleh 3
Affiliation  

AimTo systematically identify, synthesize and critically summarize the available scientific evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding whether short (≤6 mm) perform as well as long (≥10 mm) implants regarding implant survival, marginal bone loss, and biologic and prosthetic complications in different clinical scenarios.Materials and MethodsCochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the GRADE approach were applied. Results were synthesized using random‐effects meta‐analyses assessed by trial sequential analyses.ResultsForty reports on 19 RCTs comprising 2214 (1097 short; 1117 long) implants were included. Moderate/high certainty/quality evidence demonstrated similar 5‐year survival rates for ≤6‐mm and ≥10‐mm implants in non‐augmented bone and full‐mouth rehabilitation in either jaw, and for 6‐mm implants in the maxilla instead of sinus lift. Nevertheless, the evidence for 5‐year survival rates remains inconclusive or insufficient for the remaining combinations of implant lengths and clinical scenarios. They include 4‐mm and 5‐mm implants as alternatives to sinus lift as well as placing all implant lengths ≤6 mm instead of vertical ridge augmentation with long implants. Marginal bone level and short‐ and long‐term biologic or prosthetic complications were similar.ConclusionsBased on moderate/high certainty/quality evidence from 5‐year RCTs, implants ≤6 mm may be viable alternatives to ≥10‐mm implants in either jaw in native bone and full‐arch rehabilitation, and 6‐mm implants may be used as an alternative to sinus lift. Trial registration: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.

中文翻译:


在不同临床情况下,短 (≤6 mm) 与 ≥10 mm 种植牙的比较:随机临床试验的系统评价,包括荟萃分析、试验序贯分析和证据质量分级



AimTo 系统地识别、综合和批判性总结来自随机对照试验 (RCT) 的可用科学证据,这些证据涉及短 (≤6 mm) 和长 (≥10 mm) 种植体在不同临床情况下的种植体存活率、边缘骨质流失以及生物和修复并发症方面的性能是否与长 (10 mm) 种植体的性能相同。材料和方法应用了 Cochrane 协作网的偏倚风险工具和 GRADE 方法。结果是使用随机效应荟萃分析综合的,这些分析通过试验序贯分析进行评估。结果共纳入 19 项 RCT 的 40 份报告,包括 2214 例(1097 例短;1117 例长)种植体。中等/高质量/质量证据表明,≤6 毫米和 ≥10 毫米种植体在任一颌骨的非增强骨和全口康复中,以及在上颌骨中种植 6 毫米种植体而不是鼻窦提升术的 5 年生存率相似。然而,对于植入物长度和临床情况的其余组合,5 年生存率的证据仍然没有定论或不充分。它们包括 4 毫米和 5 毫米的种植体作为鼻窦提升的替代方案,以及放置所有种植体长度 ≤6 毫米,而不是使用长种植体进行垂直嵴增强。边缘骨水平与短期和长期生物或假体并发症相似。结论基于 5 年 RCT 的中等/高质量/质量证据,在自体骨和全牙弓康复中,≤ 6 mm 种植体可能是在任一颌骨中替代 ≥10 mm 种植体的可行替代方案,并且 6 mm 种植体可用作鼻窦提升术的替代方法。试验注册: PROSPERO ID: CRD42021254365.
更新日期:2024-05-20
down
wechat
bug