Paulo Rafael Esteves Fernandes, Ada Isis Pelaez Otero, Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes, L. Nassani, R. M. Castilho, G. V. de Oliveira Fernandes
{"title":"临床性能比较钛和钛锆或氧化锆牙种植体:随机对照试验的系统评价","authors":"Paulo Rafael Esteves Fernandes, Ada Isis Pelaez Otero, Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes, L. Nassani, R. M. Castilho, G. V. de Oliveira Fernandes","doi":"10.3390/dj10050083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.","PeriodicalId":47284,"journal":{"name":"Open Dentistry Journal","volume":"13 5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Performance Comparing Titanium and Titanium–Zirconium or Zirconia Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials\",\"authors\":\"Paulo Rafael Esteves Fernandes, Ada Isis Pelaez Otero, Juliana Campos Hasse Fernandes, L. Nassani, R. M. Castilho, G. V. de Oliveira Fernandes\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/dj10050083\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47284,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Dentistry Journal\",\"volume\":\"13 5 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Dentistry Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10050083\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Dentistry Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/dj10050083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
目的:本研究旨在比较钛(Ti)、氧化锆(Zr)或钛锆(TZ)种植体的临床效果,并分析生存率(SR)、探探出血(BoP)、边缘骨质流失(MBL)和/或探探深度(PD)。数据来源:人工和电子检索(PubMed和Web of Science)进行,以确定在同一研究中比较至少两种种植体类型(对照组和试验组)结果的随机对照试验。重点问题是根据PICOT策略确定的。在最初发现的202项研究中,有7项研究被纳入其中。随访时间12 ~ 80个月,平均年龄43.3 ~ 65.8岁。Ti、TZ和Zr植入物的SR分别为92.6% ~ 100%、95.8% ~ 100%和87.5% ~ 91.25%;Ti、TZ和Zr植入物的MBL变化范围为:Ti为- 1.17 mm至- 0.125 mm, TZ为- 0.6 mm至- 0.32 mm, Zr为- 0.25 mm至- 1.38 mm。研究表明,粘膜炎和种植体周围炎的发生率较低;Zr为16.43%,Ti为10% ~ 20%,TZ为10% ~ 13.8%。Ti的PD范围为1.6 ~ 3.05 mm, TZ为3.12 mm(仅有一项研究),Zr为2.21 mm ~ 2.6 mm。结论:三种种植体均表现出相似的组织行为。然而,TZ组在SR、MBL和BoP方面的效果优于Ti和Zr组,PD除外。此外,Zr种植体组的SR最差。
Clinical Performance Comparing Titanium and Titanium–Zirconium or Zirconia Dental Implants: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.