• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry >Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

机译：Clinical comparison between crestal and subcrestal dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相关主题

摘要

Statement of problem. How the performance of dental implants is related to their occlusogingival placement, crestal or subcrestal, is unclear. Purpose. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate marginal bone loss, implant survival rate, and peri-implant soft tissue parameters between implants placed at the crestal and subcrestal bone level. Material and methods. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials published up to September 2020. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and the inverse variance methods (alpha=.05). Results. The search identified 928 references, and 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. A total of 393 participants received 709 implants, 351 at crestal bone levels and 358 at subcrestal bone levels. Meta-analysis indicated that crestal bone level implants showed similar marginal bone loss to that seen with subcrestal bone level implants (mm) (P=.79), independent of the subcrestal level (P=.05) and healing protocol (P=.24). The bone level implant placement did not affect the implant survival rate (P=.76), keratinized tissue (mm) (P=.91), probing depth (mm) (P=.70), or plaque index () (P=.92). Conclusions. The evidence suggests that both approaches of implant placement are clinically acceptable in terms of peri-implant tissue parameters and implant-supported restoration survival.

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号