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

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Open Dentistry Journal Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.3390/dj10050083
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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Dentistry Journal
Open Dentistry Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
86
期刊最新文献
Caries Experience and Treatment Needs in Urban and Rural Environments in School-Age Children from Three Provinces of Ecuador: A Cross-Sectional Study Cannabidiol in Dentistry: A Scoping Review Effectiveness of 38% Silver Diamine Fluoride in Reducing Dentine Hypersensitivity on Exposed Root Surface in Older Chinese Adults: Study Protocol for a Randomised Double-Blind Study Challenges and Opportunities for Dental Education from COVID-19 An Analysis of Different Techniques Used to Seal Post-Extractive Sites—A Preliminary Report
×
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