Rhaslla Gonçalves Batista DDS , Daniele Sorgatto Faé DDS , Victor Augusto Alves Bento DDS, MSc , Cléber Davi Del Rey Daltro Rosa DDS, MSc , Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista DDS, MSc, PhD , Eduardo Piza Pellizzer DDS, MSc, PhD , Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos DDS, MSc, PhD
{"title":"Impact of tilted implants for implant-supported fixed partial dentures: A systematic review with meta-analysis","authors":"Rhaslla Gonçalves Batista DDS , Daniele Sorgatto Faé DDS , Victor Augusto Alves Bento DDS, MSc , Cléber Davi Del Rey Daltro Rosa DDS, MSc , Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista DDS, MSc, PhD , Eduardo Piza Pellizzer DDS, MSc, PhD , Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos DDS, MSc, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.11.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>The use of tilted implants has been considered a suitable option for completely edentulous patients. However, consensus on their clinical performance is lacking, specifically for partial rehabilitation.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div><span>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the </span>marginal bone loss and implant survival rate of tilted implants compared with those of axial implants for implant-supported fixed partial dentures (ISFPDs).</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A systematic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and ProQuest databases and reference lists for articles published until May 2022 was performed by 2 independent reviewers without language or publication date restrictions. A meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan version 5.4 program. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Nine studies were included, totaling 258 participants and 604 implants (269 tilted implants and 335 axial implants). No significant differences were found between the tilted and axial implants for the implant survival rate (<em>P</em>=.81; risk ratio: 1.14). However, higher marginal bone loss values were observed for tilted implants (<em>P</em>=.001; mean difference: 0.12 mm). No significant heterogeneity was observed in either analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>No significant relationship was found between tilted and axial implants for ISFPD rehabilitation. However, tilted implants presented greater risks of marginal bone loss than axial implants.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"132 5","pages":"Pages 890-897"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391322007399","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Statement of problem
The use of tilted implants has been considered a suitable option for completely edentulous patients. However, consensus on their clinical performance is lacking, specifically for partial rehabilitation.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the marginal bone loss and implant survival rate of tilted implants compared with those of axial implants for implant-supported fixed partial dentures (ISFPDs).
Material and methods
A systematic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and ProQuest databases and reference lists for articles published until May 2022 was performed by 2 independent reviewers without language or publication date restrictions. A meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan version 5.4 program. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale.
Results
Nine studies were included, totaling 258 participants and 604 implants (269 tilted implants and 335 axial implants). No significant differences were found between the tilted and axial implants for the implant survival rate (P=.81; risk ratio: 1.14). However, higher marginal bone loss values were observed for tilted implants (P=.001; mean difference: 0.12 mm). No significant heterogeneity was observed in either analysis.
Conclusions
No significant relationship was found between tilted and axial implants for ISFPD rehabilitation. However, tilted implants presented greater risks of marginal bone loss than axial implants.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.