Bernhard Pommer, Georg Mailath-Pokorny, Robert Haas, Dieter Buseniechner, Werner Millesi, Rudolf Fürhauser
{"title":"超短(< 7毫米)和超窄直径(< 3.5毫米)种植体:荟萃分析文献综述。","authors":"Bernhard Pommer, Georg Mailath-Pokorny, Robert Haas, Dieter Buseniechner, Werner Millesi, Rudolf Fürhauser","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To review available evidence in scientific literature on oral implants of severely reduced length or diameter.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Electronic and hand searches up to May 2017 were performed in order to identify clinical investigations providing implant survival and/or marginal bone resorption data for extra-short implants < 7.0 mm in length and extra-narrow implants < 3.5 mm in diameter (excluding one-piece mini-implants).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2929 extra-short implants and 3048 extra-narrow diameter implants were investigated in 53 and 29 clinical studies, respectively. Shorter implants between 4.0 mm and 5.4 mm in length showed comparable results to implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm (95.1% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.121) and no difference regarding marginal bone resorption (0.7 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.086). Implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm, however, performed significantly better in the mandible compared with the maxilla (P = 0.010). Smaller diameters between 3.0 mm and 3.25 mm yielded a significantly lower survival rate of 94.3% than wider implants of 3.3 mm to 3.4 mm diameter (97.7%, P < 0.001), while marginal bone resorption did not differ (0.4 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.447).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the present literature review suggest that extra-short and extra-narrow-diameter implants show satisfactory survival rates of around 95% and little marginal bone resorption of around 0.5 mm after a mean follow-up of 3 years. However, implant lengths < 7 mm in the maxilla and < 5.5 mm in the mandible as well as diameters < 3.3 mm may increase early failure rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":49259,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","volume":"11 Suppl 1 ","pages":"S137-S146"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extra-short (< 7 mm) and extra-narrow diameter (< 3.5 mm) implants: a meta-analytic literature review.\",\"authors\":\"Bernhard Pommer, Georg Mailath-Pokorny, Robert Haas, Dieter Buseniechner, Werner Millesi, Rudolf Fürhauser\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To review available evidence in scientific literature on oral implants of severely reduced length or diameter.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Electronic and hand searches up to May 2017 were performed in order to identify clinical investigations providing implant survival and/or marginal bone resorption data for extra-short implants < 7.0 mm in length and extra-narrow implants < 3.5 mm in diameter (excluding one-piece mini-implants).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2929 extra-short implants and 3048 extra-narrow diameter implants were investigated in 53 and 29 clinical studies, respectively. Shorter implants between 4.0 mm and 5.4 mm in length showed comparable results to implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm (95.1% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.121) and no difference regarding marginal bone resorption (0.7 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.086). Implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm, however, performed significantly better in the mandible compared with the maxilla (P = 0.010). Smaller diameters between 3.0 mm and 3.25 mm yielded a significantly lower survival rate of 94.3% than wider implants of 3.3 mm to 3.4 mm diameter (97.7%, P < 0.001), while marginal bone resorption did not differ (0.4 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.447).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of the present literature review suggest that extra-short and extra-narrow-diameter implants show satisfactory survival rates of around 95% and little marginal bone resorption of around 0.5 mm after a mean follow-up of 3 years. However, implant lengths < 7 mm in the maxilla and < 5.5 mm in the mandible as well as diameters < 3.3 mm may increase early failure rates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49259,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Oral Implantology\",\"volume\":\"11 Suppl 1 \",\"pages\":\"S137-S146\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Oral Implantology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Oral Implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:回顾现有的科学文献中关于口腔种植体长度或直径严重缩小的证据。材料和方法:截至2017年5月,进行电子和手动检索,以确定临床调查,为长度< 7.0 mm的超短种植体和直径< 3.5 mm的超窄种植体(不包括一体式微型种植体)提供种植体存活和/或边缘骨吸收数据。结果:临床研究53例,超短种植体2929例,超窄种植体3048例。长度在4.0 mm到5.4 mm之间的较短种植体与长度为5.5 mm到6.5 mm的种植体效果相当(95.1%比96.4%,P = 0.121),边缘骨吸收方面没有差异(0.7 mm比0.5 mm, P = 0.086)。种植体长度为5.5 mm ~ 6.5 mm的下颌骨种植效果明显好于上颌骨(P = 0.010)。直径在3.0 mm到3.25 mm之间的种植体存活率明显低于直径3.3 mm到3.4 mm的种植体94.3% (97.7%,P < 0.001),而边缘骨吸收没有差异(0.4 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.447)。结论:本文献综述的结果表明,经过平均3年的随访,超短和超窄直径种植体的成活率约为95%,边缘骨吸收很小,约为0.5 mm。然而,上颌骨种植体长度< 7mm,下颌骨种植体长度< 5.5 mm以及直径< 3.3 mm可能会增加早期失败率。
Extra-short (< 7 mm) and extra-narrow diameter (< 3.5 mm) implants: a meta-analytic literature review.
Aim: To review available evidence in scientific literature on oral implants of severely reduced length or diameter.
Materials and methods: Electronic and hand searches up to May 2017 were performed in order to identify clinical investigations providing implant survival and/or marginal bone resorption data for extra-short implants < 7.0 mm in length and extra-narrow implants < 3.5 mm in diameter (excluding one-piece mini-implants).
Results: A total of 2929 extra-short implants and 3048 extra-narrow diameter implants were investigated in 53 and 29 clinical studies, respectively. Shorter implants between 4.0 mm and 5.4 mm in length showed comparable results to implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm (95.1% vs. 96.4%, P = 0.121) and no difference regarding marginal bone resorption (0.7 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.086). Implant lengths of 5.5 mm to 6.5 mm, however, performed significantly better in the mandible compared with the maxilla (P = 0.010). Smaller diameters between 3.0 mm and 3.25 mm yielded a significantly lower survival rate of 94.3% than wider implants of 3.3 mm to 3.4 mm diameter (97.7%, P < 0.001), while marginal bone resorption did not differ (0.4 mm vs 0.5 mm, P = 0.447).
Conclusions: The results of the present literature review suggest that extra-short and extra-narrow-diameter implants show satisfactory survival rates of around 95% and little marginal bone resorption of around 0.5 mm after a mean follow-up of 3 years. However, implant lengths < 7 mm in the maxilla and < 5.5 mm in the mandible as well as diameters < 3.3 mm may increase early failure rates.