Marginal bone loss around platform-switched and platform-matched implants following immediate dental implant placement – Systematic Review

Jiten Vaghela , Mohammad-Adel Moufti , Noha Seoudi , Waad Kheder
{"title":"Marginal bone loss around platform-switched and platform-matched implants following immediate dental implant placement – Systematic Review","authors":"Jiten Vaghela ,&nbsp;Mohammad-Adel Moufti ,&nbsp;Noha Seoudi ,&nbsp;Waad Kheder","doi":"10.1016/j.dentre.2024.100085","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to examine marginal bone loss (MBL) around immediately placed platform-switched implants (PS) compared to platform-matched (PM) implants; and to critically appraise the available literature on this topic.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>Randomized control trials (RCTs), non- randomized control trials (NRCT) and case series of immediate placement platform-switched and platform-matched implant, published in English were included in the study. Two databases, namely Medline and PubMed covering the period between July 1966 and July 2023 were searched. A total of five case series, five RCTs and one NRCT were included in this systematic review by using pre-defined study selection criteria and following the PRISMA protocol. A critical appraisal of the selected studies was completed using standardized appraisal checklists, including CASP tool for critical appraisal of RCTs, the Downs and Black checklist for NRCT, and the CEBMa checklist for case series studies.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Five studies showed a statistically significant difference in MBL (PS: 0.18–0.78 mm, PM 0.51–1.19 mm). The studies featured a small sample size, and substantial methodological variability in patients’ selection criteria, implant and abutment designs, connection types and surgical protocols. A high risk of bias was identified, especially in case series studies.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The use of PS implants in immediate placement protocols can lead to a statistically significant reduction in MBL compared to PM implants. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution, given the numerous confounding variables and clinical heterogeneity existing between the studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100364,"journal":{"name":"Dentistry Review","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100085"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772559624000087/pdfft?md5=e01214fe31836dfb51d305083dffa63c&pid=1-s2.0-S2772559624000087-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dentistry Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772559624000087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to examine marginal bone loss (MBL) around immediately placed platform-switched implants (PS) compared to platform-matched (PM) implants; and to critically appraise the available literature on this topic.

Materials and Methods

Randomized control trials (RCTs), non- randomized control trials (NRCT) and case series of immediate placement platform-switched and platform-matched implant, published in English were included in the study. Two databases, namely Medline and PubMed covering the period between July 1966 and July 2023 were searched. A total of five case series, five RCTs and one NRCT were included in this systematic review by using pre-defined study selection criteria and following the PRISMA protocol. A critical appraisal of the selected studies was completed using standardized appraisal checklists, including CASP tool for critical appraisal of RCTs, the Downs and Black checklist for NRCT, and the CEBMa checklist for case series studies.

Results

Five studies showed a statistically significant difference in MBL (PS: 0.18–0.78 mm, PM 0.51–1.19 mm). The studies featured a small sample size, and substantial methodological variability in patients’ selection criteria, implant and abutment designs, connection types and surgical protocols. A high risk of bias was identified, especially in case series studies.

Conclusion

The use of PS implants in immediate placement protocols can lead to a statistically significant reduction in MBL compared to PM implants. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution, given the numerous confounding variables and clinical heterogeneity existing between the studies.

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
即刻种植牙后平台切换种植体和平台匹配种植体周围的边缘骨质流失 - 系统综述
本研究旨在研究即刻植入的平台切换种植体(PS)与平台匹配种植体(PM)相比,其周围的边缘骨质流失(MBL)情况;并对有关该主题的现有文献进行批判性评估。材料与方法本研究纳入了用英语发表的即刻植入平台切换种植体和平台匹配种植体的随机对照试验(RCT)、非随机对照试验(NRCT)和病例系列。研究人员检索了两个数据库,即 Medline 和 PubMed,涵盖时间为 1966 年 7 月至 2023 年 7 月。通过使用预先定义的研究选择标准并遵循 PRISMA 协议,共有 5 个病例系列、5 项 RCT 和 1 项 NRCT 被纳入本系统性综述。对所选研究的批判性评估采用了标准化评估检查表,包括用于 RCT 批判性评估的 CASP 工具、用于 NRCT 的 Downs 和 Black 检查表以及用于病例系列研究的 CEBMa 检查表。这些研究的样本量较小,在患者选择标准、种植体和基台设计、连接类型和手术方案方面存在很大的方法差异。结论与 PM 种植体相比,在即刻种植方案中使用 PS 种植体可以在统计学上显著减少 MBL。但是,由于研究中存在许多混杂变量和临床异质性,因此需要谨慎解释研究结果。
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
0
期刊最新文献
Soft tissue management as part of peri‑implantitis treatment: When, why and how? Engineered Small Extra-Cellular Vesicles for Endogenous Mesenchymal Stem Cells Recruitment and in situ Periodontal Tissue Regeneration Periodontitis Gingival Tissue Exosomes Cross and Compromise Human BBB in an In-Vitro 3D Model The Use of Phage Therapy in Reduction of Oral Cavity Bacteria: A Literature Review Will CAD/CAM Technology Increase the Effectiveness of Clinicians?
×
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