Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss Between Axial and Tilted Implants: An Umbrella Review with Meta-analysis.

Ahmad Al Malak, Yasmina El Masri, Jad El Masri, Hassan Al Issawi, Pascale Salameh, Georges Aoun
{"title":"Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Loss Between Axial and Tilted Implants: An Umbrella Review with Meta-analysis.","authors":"Ahmad Al Malak, Yasmina El Masri, Jad El Masri, Hassan Al Issawi, Pascale Salameh, Georges Aoun","doi":"10.11607/jomi.10885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To summarize and analyze all the evidence available concerning marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant failure between tilted and axial implants.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An electronic literature search was conducted without any language restrictions, and only systematic reviews with meta-analysis or meta-analysis studies were included. Relative risks (RRs) and the differences in mean (MD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the assessed outcomes (in mm) of implant failure and MBL.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, eight studies were included. Based on the short-term results, a nonsignificant mean difference (MD = 0.00; 95% CI; -0.01-0.02; P value = .75) was recorded between tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch dentures. A significant mean difference was recorded at 3-year follow-up (MD = 0.08 95% CI= 0.05-0.11; P value < .00001) and at long-term follow-up (MD = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.15-0.20; P value < .00001). A nonsignificant difference was observed between tilted and axial implants regarding implant failure (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.85-1.23;P value = .81).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on the high- and moderate-quality studies with low risk of bias included in this review, no significant difference in outcome regarding implant failure was observed between tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch or fixed partial dentures.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"875-883"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10885","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

Purpose: To summarize and analyze all the evidence available concerning marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant failure between tilted and axial implants.

Materials and methods: An electronic literature search was conducted without any language restrictions, and only systematic reviews with meta-analysis or meta-analysis studies were included. Relative risks (RRs) and the differences in mean (MD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the assessed outcomes (in mm) of implant failure and MBL.

Results: In total, eight studies were included. Based on the short-term results, a nonsignificant mean difference (MD = 0.00; 95% CI; -0.01-0.02; P value = .75) was recorded between tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch dentures. A significant mean difference was recorded at 3-year follow-up (MD = 0.08 95% CI= 0.05-0.11; P value < .00001) and at long-term follow-up (MD = 0.18; 95% CI = 0.15-0.20; P value < .00001). A nonsignificant difference was observed between tilted and axial implants regarding implant failure (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.85-1.23;P value = .81).

Conclusions: Based on the high- and moderate-quality studies with low risk of bias included in this review, no significant difference in outcome regarding implant failure was observed between tilted and axial implants supporting full-arch or fixed partial dentures.

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
轴向和倾斜种植体之间的种植失败和边缘骨损失:带 Meta 分析的总综述。
目的:一些解剖学和组织学方面的限制会使种植体植入变得复杂,而倾斜种植体的定位似乎可以弥补这些限制。然而,一些研究表明,与传统种植体相比,倾斜种植体的边缘骨损失和种植失败率更高。因此,本综述旨在总结和分析有关倾斜种植体和轴向种植体边缘骨质流失和种植失败的所有证据:方法:我们进行了电子文献检索,没有任何语言限制,只纳入了具有荟萃分析或荟萃分析研究的系统综述。本综述评估的结果是种植失败和边缘骨质流失(以毫米为单位)。结果:共纳入 8 项研究,根据短期结果,平均差异不显著(MD=0.00;95% 置信区间;-0.01-0.02;p 值 = 0.75),而在 3 年的长期随访中,平均差异显著(MD= 0.08 95% 置信区间 = 0.05-0.11;p 值 = 0.75)。
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
Survival Analysis up to 8 Years of 304 Anatomical-Contour Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns Fabricated with a Fully Digital Cast-Free Workflow and Directly Screwed on External Hexagonal Implant Connections Without the Interposition of a Ti-Base: A Multicentric Retrospective Study. Monolithic Zirconia Single Crowns Supported by Narrow- or Standard-Diameter Titanium-Zirconia Implants in Posterior Sites: 1-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Alteration of Keratinized Mucosa Dimensions in the Early Healing Period After Implant Placement: A 6-Month Prospective Study. Does Implant Placement Below the Ridge Reduce Crestal Bone Loss? A Split-Mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. A Comparative Evaluation of Surface and Elemental Changes in Stainless Steel and Titanium Orthodontic Miniscrew Implants: A Multiarm Randomized Controlled Trial.
×
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