{"title":"平台切换种植体是否影响嵴骨水平?系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"A. Eldien, E. Mahmoud, H. Hamed, M. Shoeib","doi":"10.31254/DENTISTRY.2019.4106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To assess the effects of platform switching in patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations on implant failure and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trial register (04 February 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 02), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 04 February 2017) and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (04 February 2017). We hand searched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of platform switching versus platform matching in patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations were included. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome measures were implant failure and patient satisfaction. Results: We included 12 studies (513 participants). There was no difference between platform switching and matching after 1-3 years of follow up in implant failures (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.70; studies = 7) or patient satisfaction (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.55; participants = 24; studies = 1). Regarding marginal bone loss, when we pooled down the data obtained from six trials, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 81%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome. Conclusions: In patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations, there is insufficient evidence to support platform switching or platform matching implant-abutment connection design to improve implant survival and patient satisfaction.","PeriodicalId":240291,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dentistry Research","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the platform switching implant affect the crestal bone level? A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"A. Eldien, E. Mahmoud, H. Hamed, M. Shoeib\",\"doi\":\"10.31254/DENTISTRY.2019.4106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: To assess the effects of platform switching in patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations on implant failure and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trial register (04 February 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 02), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 04 February 2017) and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (04 February 2017). We hand searched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of platform switching versus platform matching in patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations were included. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome measures were implant failure and patient satisfaction. Results: We included 12 studies (513 participants). There was no difference between platform switching and matching after 1-3 years of follow up in implant failures (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.70; studies = 7) or patient satisfaction (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.55; participants = 24; studies = 1). Regarding marginal bone loss, when we pooled down the data obtained from six trials, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 81%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome. Conclusions: In patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations, there is insufficient evidence to support platform switching or platform matching implant-abutment connection design to improve implant survival and patient satisfaction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":240291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Dentistry Research\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-04-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Dentistry Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31254/DENTISTRY.2019.4106\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dentistry Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31254/DENTISTRY.2019.4106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
摘要
目的:评估种植体支撑固定修复体患者平台切换对种植体失败和患者满意度的影响。材料和方法:我们检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册(2017年2月4日)、Cochrane中央对照试验注册(Cochrane图书馆2017年第02期)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2017年2月4日)和WHO国际临床试验注册平台(2017年2月4日)。我们手工检索了相关出版物的引文列表。我们没有使用任何语言或日期限制。随机对照试验(rct)比较了平台切换与平台匹配在种植体支持的固定修复体修复患者中的有效性。两名审稿人独立评估试验的纳入和偏倚风险,提取数据并检查准确性。我们将结果表示为风险比(RR)或平均差异(MD)及其95%置信区间(CI)。主要观察指标为种植体失败和患者满意度。结果:我们纳入了12项研究(513名受试者)。随访1-3年后移植失败的平台切换和匹配无差异(RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 ~ 7.70;研究= 7)或患者满意度(MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 ~ 0.55;参与者= 24人;关于边缘性骨质流失,当我们汇总六项试验的数据时,我们发现了大量的异质性(I2 = 81%),在效果方向上不一致,这是由于研究之间的临床或方法学差异所无法解释的,因此我们没有对这一结果进行meta分析。结论:在使用种植体支撑固定修复体的患者中,没有足够的证据支持平台切换或平台匹配种植体-基台连接设计来提高种植体存活率和患者满意度。
Does the platform switching implant affect the crestal bone level? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Objectives: To assess the effects of platform switching in patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations on implant failure and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trial register (04 February 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 02), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 04 February 2017) and the WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (04 February 2017). We hand searched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of platform switching versus platform matching in patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations were included. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome measures were implant failure and patient satisfaction. Results: We included 12 studies (513 participants). There was no difference between platform switching and matching after 1-3 years of follow up in implant failures (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.70; studies = 7) or patient satisfaction (MD 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.55; participants = 24; studies = 1). Regarding marginal bone loss, when we pooled down the data obtained from six trials, we identified substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 81%) with inconsistency in the direction of effect, which was unexplained by clinical or methodological differences between the studies, and accordingly we did not perform meta-analysis for this outcome. Conclusions: In patients restored with implant supported fixed restorations, there is insufficient evidence to support platform switching or platform matching implant-abutment connection design to improve implant survival and patient satisfaction.