Cargando…

Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Palacios-Garzón, Natalia, Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio, López-López, José
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6337530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30621286
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12010154
_version_ 1783388276212629504
author Palacios-Garzón, Natalia
Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
López-López, José
author_facet Palacios-Garzón, Natalia
Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
López-López, José
author_sort Palacios-Garzón, Natalia
collection PubMed
description Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss for implants placed at crestal and subcrestal level were included. Pooled estimates from comparable studies were analyzed using a continuous random-effects model meta-analysis with the objective of assessing differences in crestal bone loss between the two vertical positions. Results: 16 studies were included; 10 studies did not encounter statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to bone loss. Three articles found greater bone loss in subcrestal implants; while 3 found more bone loss in crestal implants. A meta-analysis for randomized control trial (RCT) studies reported an average and non-statistically different crestal bone loss of 0.028 mm. Conclusions: A high survival rate and a comparable bone loss was obtained both for crestal and subcrestal implants’ placement. Quantitative analysis considering a homogenous sample confirms that both vertical positions are equally valid in terms of perimplant bone loss. However, with respect to soft tissue; in presence of a thin tissue; a subcrestal placement of the implant should be preferred as it may reduce the probability for the implant to become exposed in the future and thus avoid the risk of suffering from peri-implant pathologies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6337530
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63375302019-01-22 Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Palacios-Garzón, Natalia Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio López-López, José Materials (Basel) Review Background: To assess differences in marginal bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal versus crestal level. Methods: An electronic and a manual research of articles written in English from Jaunary 2010 to January 2018 was performed by two independent reviewers. Clinical trials comparing bone loss for implants placed at crestal and subcrestal level were included. Pooled estimates from comparable studies were analyzed using a continuous random-effects model meta-analysis with the objective of assessing differences in crestal bone loss between the two vertical positions. Results: 16 studies were included; 10 studies did not encounter statistically significant differences between the two groups with respect to bone loss. Three articles found greater bone loss in subcrestal implants; while 3 found more bone loss in crestal implants. A meta-analysis for randomized control trial (RCT) studies reported an average and non-statistically different crestal bone loss of 0.028 mm. Conclusions: A high survival rate and a comparable bone loss was obtained both for crestal and subcrestal implants’ placement. Quantitative analysis considering a homogenous sample confirms that both vertical positions are equally valid in terms of perimplant bone loss. However, with respect to soft tissue; in presence of a thin tissue; a subcrestal placement of the implant should be preferred as it may reduce the probability for the implant to become exposed in the future and thus avoid the risk of suffering from peri-implant pathologies. MDPI 2019-01-05 /pmc/articles/PMC6337530/ /pubmed/30621286 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12010154 Text en © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Palacios-Garzón, Natalia
Velasco-Ortega, Eugenio
López-López, José
Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Bone Loss in Implants Placed at Subcrestal and Crestal Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort bone loss in implants placed at subcrestal and crestal level: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6337530/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30621286
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma12010154
work_keys_str_mv AT palaciosgarzonnatalia bonelossinimplantsplacedatsubcrestalandcrestallevelasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT velascoortegaeugenio bonelossinimplantsplacedatsubcrestalandcrestallevelasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lopezlopezjose bonelossinimplantsplacedatsubcrestalandcrestallevelasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis