Differences in Titanium, Titanium-Zirconium, Zirconia Implants Treatment Outcomes: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research Pub Date : 2023-09-30 eCollection Date: 2023-07-01 DOI:10.5037/jomr.2023.14301
Eliezer Haimov, Rafael Sarikov, Haim Haimov, Gintaras Juodzbalys
{"title":"Differences in Titanium, Titanium-Zirconium, Zirconia Implants Treatment Outcomes: a Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Eliezer Haimov, Rafael Sarikov, Haim Haimov, Gintaras Juodzbalys","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2023.14301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this systematic review is to test the hypothesis that treatment with titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconia dental implants has different clinical outcomes in survival rate, marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, plaque control record, and probing depth.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic electronic search through the PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies published between January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2023 containing a minimum of 10 patients per study comparing titanium (Ti), titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr), and zirconia (Zr) dental implants. Ti, Ti-Zr, and Zr dental implant clinical outcomes were determined by evaluating survival rate, marginal bone level, bleeding on probing, probing depth, plaque control record. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1361 articles were screened, with 10 meeting the inclusion criteria and being utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 301 patients with 637 implants (304 Ti, 134 Ti-Zr, and 199 Zr) were evaluated, showing a survival rate of 97.7% for Ti, 98.6% for Ti-Zr, and 93.8% for Zr implants respectively. In a meta-analysis, no difference in marginal bone level was found between Ti, Ti-Zr, and Zr implants (P = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dental implant survival rate was lower in zirconia group. Assessment of marginal bone loss and bleeding on probing showed better results with titanium-zirconium dental implants. Plaque control result was similar in all groups. Due to limited sample size assessed it was not possible to obtain conclusion on probing depth parameter.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10645476/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2023.14301","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this systematic review is to test the hypothesis that treatment with titanium, titanium-zirconium and zirconia dental implants has different clinical outcomes in survival rate, marginal bone loss, bleeding on probing, plaque control record, and probing depth.

Material and methods: A systematic electronic search through the PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify studies published between January 1, 2013 and January 1, 2023 containing a minimum of 10 patients per study comparing titanium (Ti), titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr), and zirconia (Zr) dental implants. Ti, Ti-Zr, and Zr dental implant clinical outcomes were determined by evaluating survival rate, marginal bone level, bleeding on probing, probing depth, plaque control record. Quality and risk-of-bias assessment were evaluated by Cochrane risk of bias tool.

Results: A total of 1361 articles were screened, with 10 meeting the inclusion criteria and being utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 301 patients with 637 implants (304 Ti, 134 Ti-Zr, and 199 Zr) were evaluated, showing a survival rate of 97.7% for Ti, 98.6% for Ti-Zr, and 93.8% for Zr implants respectively. In a meta-analysis, no difference in marginal bone level was found between Ti, Ti-Zr, and Zr implants (P = 0.84).

Conclusions: Dental implant survival rate was lower in zirconia group. Assessment of marginal bone loss and bleeding on probing showed better results with titanium-zirconium dental implants. Plaque control result was similar in all groups. Due to limited sample size assessed it was not possible to obtain conclusion on probing depth parameter.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
钛、钛锆、氧化锆种植体治疗效果的差异:系统文献综述和meta分析。
目的:本系统综述的目的是验证钛、钛锆和氧化锆种植体治疗在生存率、边缘骨质流失、探诊出血、菌斑控制记录和探诊深度等方面具有不同临床结果的假设。材料和方法:通过PubMed (MEDLINE)和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行系统的电子检索,以确定2013年1月1日至2023年1月1日发表的研究,每项研究至少包含10名患者,比较钛(Ti),钛锆(Ti-Zr)和氧化锆(Zr)种植体。Ti、Ti-Zr和Zr牙种植体的临床疗效通过评估成活率、边缘骨水平、探探时出血、探探深度、菌斑控制记录来确定。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评价质量和偏倚风险。结果:共筛选1361篇文章,其中10篇符合纳入标准,被用于本系统评价和荟萃分析。共评估301例患者637种种植体(304 Ti, 134 Ti-Zr和199 Zr), Ti种植体的生存率为97.7%,Ti-Zr种植体的生存率为98.6%,Zr种植体的生存率为93.8%。在荟萃分析中,Ti、Ti-Zr和Zr种植体的边缘骨水平没有差异(P = 0.84)。结论:氧化锆组种植体成活率较低。钛锆种植体对边缘骨丢失和探探出血的评估显示钛锆种植体效果更好。各组斑块控制结果相似。由于评估的样本量有限,无法得出探测深度参数的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Use of Platelet-Rich Fibrin in Sinus Floor Augmentation Surgery: a Systematic Review. Attitudes of Oral Surgeons and Periodontists towards Immediate Dental Implant Placement. Can CAPRIN-1 Be Responsible for the Recurrence Potential of Odontogenic Keratocysts? Dental Implant Placement in the Maxilla Following Ridge Augmentation with Free Iliac Bone Graft and Oral Rehabilitation with Fixed Prosthesis: a Three-Year Follow-Up Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1