Cargando…
Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the diameter of implants inserted in the posterior area affects implant survival rate, prosthetic survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10122303/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37085829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02962-8 |
_version_ | 1785029465308397568 |
---|---|
author | Pesce, Paolo Del Fabbro, Massimo Modenese, Laura Sandron, Stefano Francetti, Luca Isola, Gaetano Canullo, Luigi Menini, Maria |
author_facet | Pesce, Paolo Del Fabbro, Massimo Modenese, Laura Sandron, Stefano Francetti, Luca Isola, Gaetano Canullo, Luigi Menini, Maria |
author_sort | Pesce, Paolo |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the diameter of implants inserted in the posterior area affects implant survival rate, prosthetic survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD)). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of studies published until December 2021 was done on three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane) independently by two authors. Clinical trials comparing implant survival rate, BoP, MBL and PPD among narrow diameter implants (NDI: ≥ 3.0 mm to < 3.75 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDI ≥ 3.75 mm to < 5 mm) were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for non-randomized ones. A pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted on the included studies. RESULTS: Seven articles were included out of the 4291 identified from the digital research. Overall, a total of 939 implants were inserted (319 NDI, 620 RDI). Only one study was judged at serious risk of bias. No statistically significant difference was found in implant survival rate (risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI [0.98 to 1.04], P = 0.67)) while the difference was significant for BoP (mean difference 2.89 (95% CI [0.30 to 5.48] mm, P = 0.03)) with higher values for NDI. Higher MBL was identified among regular diameter implants (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI [-0.32 to 0.01 mm], P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were identified for prosthetic survival and PPD. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in implant survival rate between narrow and regular implants. A higher BoP was identified among narrow implants, but there was no higher bone loss. It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior region. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-02962-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10122303 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101223032023-04-23 Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis Pesce, Paolo Del Fabbro, Massimo Modenese, Laura Sandron, Stefano Francetti, Luca Isola, Gaetano Canullo, Luigi Menini, Maria BMC Oral Health Research OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the diameter of implants inserted in the posterior area affects implant survival rate, prosthetic survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD)). MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of studies published until December 2021 was done on three databases (Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane) independently by two authors. Clinical trials comparing implant survival rate, BoP, MBL and PPD among narrow diameter implants (NDI: ≥ 3.0 mm to < 3.75 mm) and regular diameter implants (RDI ≥ 3.75 mm to < 5 mm) were included. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized studies and to the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools for non-randomized ones. A pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted on the included studies. RESULTS: Seven articles were included out of the 4291 identified from the digital research. Overall, a total of 939 implants were inserted (319 NDI, 620 RDI). Only one study was judged at serious risk of bias. No statistically significant difference was found in implant survival rate (risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI [0.98 to 1.04], P = 0.67)) while the difference was significant for BoP (mean difference 2.89 (95% CI [0.30 to 5.48] mm, P = 0.03)) with higher values for NDI. Higher MBL was identified among regular diameter implants (mean difference -0.15 mm (95% CI [-0.32 to 0.01 mm], P = 0.07). No statistically significant differences were identified for prosthetic survival and PPD. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were found in implant survival rate between narrow and regular implants. A higher BoP was identified among narrow implants, but there was no higher bone loss. It is not possible to draw definitive conclusions about the use of narrow-diameter implants in the posterior region. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-023-02962-8. BioMed Central 2023-04-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10122303/ /pubmed/37085829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02962-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Pesce, Paolo Del Fabbro, Massimo Modenese, Laura Sandron, Stefano Francetti, Luca Isola, Gaetano Canullo, Luigi Menini, Maria Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | influence of implant diameter on implant survival rate and clinical outcomes in the posterior area: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10122303/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37085829 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-02962-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pescepaolo influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT delfabbromassimo influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT modeneselaura influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT sandronstefano influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT francettiluca influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT isolagaetano influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT canulloluigi influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT meninimaria influenceofimplantdiameteronimplantsurvivalrateandclinicaloutcomesintheposteriorareaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |