Is an internal tapered connection more efficient than an internal nontapered connection? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Is an internal tapered connection more efficient than an internal nontapered connection? A systematic review and meta-analysis
复制标题
内部锥形连接是否比内部非锥形连接更有效？
DOI：
10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.018
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Wang Jiawei
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yu Xijie;Han Yuting;Wang Jiawei
问题陈述内部连接是一种广泛使用的种植体-基台连接。然而，比较内部锥形和非锥形连接系统的荟萃分析是缺乏的。PurposeThe的目的，这一系统的审查和荟萃分析的目的是评估是否内部锥形连接执行优于内部非锥形连接方面的种植体生存，边缘骨丢失，探测深度，并发症。材料和方法以下具体问题是制定基于人口，干预，控制，皮科模型：在种植体存活率、边缘骨丢失、探测深度和并发症方面，接受内部锥形连接种植体的患者是否比接受内部非锥形连接种植体的患者显示出更好的预后？在科克伦图书馆数据库、MEDLINE（PubMed）和Embase中进行了电子系统文献检索，以查找以英语发表的相关研究，无时间限制。还进行了人工搜索。在体内随机对照试验（RCT）和前瞻性队列研究包括在内。ResultsA共收集到592篇研究的电子和手动检索。经2名评价者独立筛选后，纳入5项随机对照试验和2项前瞻性队列研究。种植体存活率无显著差异（P= 0.47; RR：1.01; 95% CI：0.98，1.05）。关于边缘骨丢失，内部锥形连接的结果优于非锥形连接（P= 0.003; MD：−0.43 mm; 95% CI：−0.73，−0.14）。内部锥形连接的探测深度也低于非锥形连接（P= 0.002; MD：-0.24 mm; 95% CI：-0.39，-0.09）。并发症发生率无显著差异（P= 0.47; RR：1.21; 95%CI：0.72，2.04）。结论在本系统综述和荟萃分析的限制范围内，内锥形连接和非锥形连接在种植体存活率和并发症发生率方面具有可比性。与内部非锥形连接相比，锥形连接的边缘骨丢失和探测深度明显较低。
Statement of problemThe internal connection is a widely used implant-abutment connection. However, a meta-analysis comparing the internal tapered and nontapered connection systems is lacking.PurposeThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess whether the internal tapered connection performs better than the internal nontapered connection in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss, probing depths, and complications.Material and methodsThe following specific question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO) model: Do patients receiving internal tapered connection implants show better prognosis than those receiving the internal nontapered connection in terms of implant survival, marginal bone loss, probing depths, and complications? An electronic systematic literature search was conducted in the Cochrane Library databases, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Embase for relevant studies published in English without time restrictions. A manual search was also conducted. In vivo randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies were included.ResultsA total of 592 studies were collected from the electronic and manual searches. After independent screening by 2 reviewers, 5 RCTs and 2 prospective cohort studies were included. No significant difference was observed in implant survival rates (P=.47; RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98, 1.05). Regarding marginal bone loss, the internal tapered connection presented better results than the nontapered connection (P=.003; MD: −0.43 mm; 95% CI: −0.73, −0.14). The internal tapered connection also exhibited lower probing depths than the nontapered one (P=.002; MD: −0.24 mm; 95% CI: −0.39, −0.09). No significant difference was observed in complication rates (P=.47; RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.72, 2.04).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, the internal tapered connection and nontapered connection were comparable in terms of implant survival rates and complication rates. In contrast to the internal nontapered connection, marginal bone loss and probing depths in the tapered connection were significantly lower.