12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Marginal Bone Level and Clinical Parameter Analysis Comparing External Hexagon and Morse Taper Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The goal of this systematic review was to verify the marginal bone loss (MBL) and other clinical parameters comparing external hexagon (EH) and Morse taper (MT) implants when they were evaluated within the same study. The focused question was, “For patients (P) treated with external connection (I) or Morse taper (C) dental implants, were there differences in the marginal bone crest maintenance after at least three months in occlusal function (O)”? As for the inclusion criteria that were considered, they included clinical studies in English that compared the MBL in implants with EH and MT, with follow-up of at least three months, that were published between 2011 and 2022; as for the exclusion criteria, they included publications investigating only one type of connection that analyzed other variables and did not report results for the MBL, reports based on questionnaires, interviews, and case reports/series, systematic reviews, or studies involving patients with a significant health problem (ASA Physical Status 3 and above). The PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases were screened, and all of the data obtained were registered in a spreadsheet (Excel®). The Jadad scale was used to assess the quality of the studies. A total of 110 articles were initially identified; 11 were considered for full-text reading. Then, six articles (four RCTs and two prospective studies) met the eligibility criteria and were included in this study. A total of 185 patients (mean age of 59.71) were observed, and the follow-up ranged from 3 months to 36 months. A total of 541 implants were registered (267 EH and 274 MT). The survival rate ranged between 96% and 100% (the average was 97.82%). The MBL was compared among all periods studied; therefore, the common assessment period was the 12-month follow-up, presenting greater MBL for EH than for MT (p < 0.001). A mean MBL of 0.60 mm (95% CI 0.43–0.78) was found after the same period. BoP was reported in 5 studies and plaque index was reported in 4 (2 with more than 30%). Deep PD was observed in three studies. High heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 85.06%). Thus, within the limitation of this review, it was possible to conclude that there is higher bone loss in EH than in MT implants when evaluating and comparing this variable within the same study. However, the results must be carefully interpreted because of this review’s limited number of clinical studies, the short assessment period, and the high heterogeneity found.

          Related collections

          Most cited references67

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The effect of the distance from the contact point to the crest of bone on the presence or absence of the interproximal dental papilla.

              This study was designed to determine whether the distance from the base of the contact area to the crest of bone could be correlated with the presence or absence of the interproximal papilla in humans. A total of 288 sites in 30 patients were examined. If a space was visible apical to the contact point, then the papilla was deemed missing; if tissue filled the embrasure space, the papilla was considered to be present. The results showed that when the measurement from the contact point to the crest of bone was 5 mm or less, the papilla was present almost 100% of the time. When the distance was 6 mm, the papilla was present 56% of the time, and when the distance was 7 mm or more, the papilla was present 27% of the time or less.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                DIAGC9
                Diagnostics
                Diagnostics
                MDPI AG
                2075-4418
                May 2023
                April 28 2023
                : 13
                : 9
                : 1587
                Article
                10.3390/diagnostics13091587
                37174979
                0e403458-77bc-4441-a8e7-1986d1f04686
                © 2023

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log