比较短种植体与上颌窦提升术疗效的meta分析

Clinical outcomes of short implants compared to sinus floor augmentation: a meta-analysis

目的比较上颌窦提升同期或择期植入标准种植体和直接植入短种植体的3年临床疗效。方法在PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library进行系统检索,检索时间自建库至2018年8月。另外手工检索了纳入文献的参考文献作为补充。经过文献筛选和数据提取,进行meta分析。本研究的主要结局为种植体存留率,次要结局为种植体周围边缘骨丧失和并发症。结果 6项随机对照试验符合纳入标准。结果显示,短种植体与常规种植体在种植体存留率上无显著差异(RR:0.98; 95%CI:[0.95,1.02];P=0.38)。在种植体周围边缘骨丧失方面,meta分析结果显示短种植体优于常规种植体(MD=-0.19; 95%CI:[-0.33,-0.05];P=0.007)。上颌窦提升组的种植并发症多于短种植体组。结论经过3年的观察,与上颌窦提升后常规种植体植入相比,短种植体具有更好的临床效果。未来需要更多高质量的随机对照试验对本研究结果进行验证。

Objective To compare the 3-year outcomes of short implants and standard implants placed after or simultaneously with sinus floor augmentation.Methods A systematic electronic search was conducted in PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library until August 2018 to identify articles reporting on short implants in contradistinction to standard implants with sinus floor lift.An additional hand search of the related reviews and the references of included articles was conducted to complement the electronic search.After the selection of studies and the extraction of data,a meta-analysis was conducted.The primary outcome was implant survival rates.The secondary outcomes were peri-implant marginal bone loss(MBL) and complications.Results Six randomized controlled trials with 3-year follow-up met the inclusion criteria.There was no significant difference in implant survival rates(RR: 0.98;95% CI: [0.95,1.02];p=0.38) between the two groups.For MBL,the data synthesis results showed that short implants were more favorable(MD=-0.19;95% CI: [-0.33,-0.05];p=0.007).Complications occurred more in the group with SFA than in the short implant group.Conclusions After 3 years of observation,when compared to standard implants with SFA,short implants showed more favorable outcomes.Further RCTs with more participants and longer follow-up are needed to confirm our findings.