The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis
The purpose of this study is to analyze 1- and 3-year clinical performances of narrow diameter implants (NDIs) versus regular diameter implants (RDIs). A search of electronic databases and a manual search was performed for the time period January 2000 to April 2018. A meta-regression was used to eva...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of oral implantology 2019-12, Vol.45 (6), p.503-508 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 508 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 6 |
| container_start_page | 503 |
| container_title | The Journal of oral implantology |
| container_volume | 45 |
| creator | Ma, Meng Qi, Mengxing Zhang, Dongsheng Liu, Hongchen |
| description | The purpose of this study is to analyze 1- and 3-year clinical performances of narrow diameter implants (NDIs) versus regular diameter implants (RDIs). A search of electronic databases and a manual search was performed for the time period January 2000 to April 2018. A meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of the "fixed effects" model on the implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) with follow-up time of 1 year and 3 years. Of the 11 studies included, the overall combined 1-year implant survival rates were 98.14% for NDIs and 98.20% for RDIs. The overall combined 3-year implant survival rates were 98.71% for NDIs and 98.84% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 1-year prosthesis success rates were 96.94% for NDIs and 99.25% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 3-year prosthesis success rates were 89.25% for NDIs and 96.55% for RDIs. The meta-regression showed no significant differences between NDIs and RDIs regarding implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1-year and 3-year follow-up (
> .05). The results of this meta-analysis concluded that the implant diameter did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1 and 3 years. The use of NDIs instead of bone augmentation procedures with RDIs did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in the short-term and middle-term. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials and long follow-up studies are needed on this topic. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00025 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2295472171</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2295472171</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-ff1a10c05af271372eb29852d50e8b4abfd53778dd93910975a612f7c648b84f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplkUtLAzEAhIMotlZ_gSABL16ieWw2ibfS-oL6QKrXkN1NNGUfNdlF-u_d2upBT3P5ZhhmADgm-JzwlF0Y4wu0aDyaIqIQxpjyHTAkPJGIMJbugiEmKUapEnQADmJcrAnOyT4YMMJZmrBkCNz83cJJ6WufmxI-2eCaUJk6t7Bx8MGE0HzCqTeVbW2Ad9WyNHUb4asNsYvw2b51pQn_gUs4hve2NWhcm3IVfTwEe86U0R5tdQRerq_mk1s0e7y5m4xnKGeMtcg5YgjOMTeOCsIEtRlVktOCYyuzxGSu4EwIWRSKKYKV4CYl1Ik8TWQmE8dG4GyTuwzNR2djqysfc1v2rWzTRU2p4omgpA8fgdM_6KLpQt-3p1giZT-PVD3FNlQemhiDdXoZfGXCShOs1zfo9Q291eupJkp_39C7TrbZXVbZ4tfzszv7Ag6IhEI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2348843489</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Allen Press Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Ma, Meng ; Qi, Mengxing ; Zhang, Dongsheng ; Liu, Hongchen</creator><creatorcontrib>Ma, Meng ; Qi, Mengxing ; Zhang, Dongsheng ; Liu, Hongchen</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study is to analyze 1- and 3-year clinical performances of narrow diameter implants (NDIs) versus regular diameter implants (RDIs). A search of electronic databases and a manual search was performed for the time period January 2000 to April 2018. A meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of the "fixed effects" model on the implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) with follow-up time of 1 year and 3 years. Of the 11 studies included, the overall combined 1-year implant survival rates were 98.14% for NDIs and 98.20% for RDIs. The overall combined 3-year implant survival rates were 98.71% for NDIs and 98.84% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 1-year prosthesis success rates were 96.94% for NDIs and 99.25% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 3-year prosthesis success rates were 89.25% for NDIs and 96.55% for RDIs. The meta-regression showed no significant differences between NDIs and RDIs regarding implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1-year and 3-year follow-up (
> .05). The results of this meta-analysis concluded that the implant diameter did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1 and 3 years. The use of NDIs instead of bone augmentation procedures with RDIs did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in the short-term and middle-term. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials and long follow-up studies are needed on this topic.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0160-6972</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1548-1336</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00025</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31536434</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Allen Press Inc</publisher><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss ; Bias ; Bone loss ; Clinical trials ; Collaboration ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis Design ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dentistry ; Follow-Up Studies ; Fractures ; Humans ; Maxillofacial surgery ; Meta-analysis ; Periodontics ; Prostheses ; Quality ; Studies ; Success ; Survival</subject><ispartof>The Journal of oral implantology, 2019-12, Vol.45 (6), p.503-508</ispartof><rights>Copyright Allen Press Publishing Services 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-ff1a10c05af271372eb29852d50e8b4abfd53778dd93910975a612f7c648b84f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-ff1a10c05af271372eb29852d50e8b4abfd53778dd93910975a612f7c648b84f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27923,27924</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31536434$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ma, Meng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Mengxing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Dongsheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Hongchen</creatorcontrib><title>The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis</title><title>The Journal of oral implantology</title><addtitle>J Oral Implantol</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study is to analyze 1- and 3-year clinical performances of narrow diameter implants (NDIs) versus regular diameter implants (RDIs). A search of electronic databases and a manual search was performed for the time period January 2000 to April 2018. A meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of the "fixed effects" model on the implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) with follow-up time of 1 year and 3 years. Of the 11 studies included, the overall combined 1-year implant survival rates were 98.14% for NDIs and 98.20% for RDIs. The overall combined 3-year implant survival rates were 98.71% for NDIs and 98.84% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 1-year prosthesis success rates were 96.94% for NDIs and 99.25% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 3-year prosthesis success rates were 89.25% for NDIs and 96.55% for RDIs. The meta-regression showed no significant differences between NDIs and RDIs regarding implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1-year and 3-year follow-up (
> .05). The results of this meta-analysis concluded that the implant diameter did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1 and 3 years. The use of NDIs instead of bone augmentation procedures with RDIs did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in the short-term and middle-term. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials and long follow-up studies are needed on this topic.</description><subject>Alveolar Bone Loss</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Bone loss</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Collaboration</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Design</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Maxillofacial surgery</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Periodontics</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Success</subject><subject>Survival</subject><issn>0160-6972</issn><issn>1548-1336</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNplkUtLAzEAhIMotlZ_gSABL16ieWw2ibfS-oL6QKrXkN1NNGUfNdlF-u_d2upBT3P5ZhhmADgm-JzwlF0Y4wu0aDyaIqIQxpjyHTAkPJGIMJbugiEmKUapEnQADmJcrAnOyT4YMMJZmrBkCNz83cJJ6WufmxI-2eCaUJk6t7Bx8MGE0HzCqTeVbW2Ad9WyNHUb4asNsYvw2b51pQn_gUs4hve2NWhcm3IVfTwEe86U0R5tdQRerq_mk1s0e7y5m4xnKGeMtcg5YgjOMTeOCsIEtRlVktOCYyuzxGSu4EwIWRSKKYKV4CYl1Ik8TWQmE8dG4GyTuwzNR2djqysfc1v2rWzTRU2p4omgpA8fgdM_6KLpQt-3p1giZT-PVD3FNlQemhiDdXoZfGXCShOs1zfo9Q291eupJkp_39C7TrbZXVbZ4tfzszv7Ag6IhEI</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Ma, Meng</creator><creator>Qi, Mengxing</creator><creator>Zhang, Dongsheng</creator><creator>Liu, Hongchen</creator><general>Allen Press Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis</title><author>Ma, Meng ; Qi, Mengxing ; Zhang, Dongsheng ; Liu, Hongchen</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c333t-ff1a10c05af271372eb29852d50e8b4abfd53778dd93910975a612f7c648b84f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Alveolar Bone Loss</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Bone loss</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Collaboration</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Design</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Maxillofacial surgery</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Periodontics</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Success</topic><topic>Survival</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ma, Meng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Qi, Mengxing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Dongsheng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Hongchen</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of oral implantology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ma, Meng</au><au>Qi, Mengxing</au><au>Zhang, Dongsheng</au><au>Liu, Hongchen</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of oral implantology</jtitle><addtitle>J Oral Implantol</addtitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>503</spage><epage>508</epage><pages>503-508</pages><issn>0160-6972</issn><eissn>1548-1336</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study is to analyze 1- and 3-year clinical performances of narrow diameter implants (NDIs) versus regular diameter implants (RDIs). A search of electronic databases and a manual search was performed for the time period January 2000 to April 2018. A meta-regression was used to evaluate the effects of the "fixed effects" model on the implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) with follow-up time of 1 year and 3 years. Of the 11 studies included, the overall combined 1-year implant survival rates were 98.14% for NDIs and 98.20% for RDIs. The overall combined 3-year implant survival rates were 98.71% for NDIs and 98.84% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 1-year prosthesis success rates were 96.94% for NDIs and 99.25% for RDIs. The corresponding values for 3-year prosthesis success rates were 89.25% for NDIs and 96.55% for RDIs. The meta-regression showed no significant differences between NDIs and RDIs regarding implant survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1-year and 3-year follow-up (
> .05). The results of this meta-analysis concluded that the implant diameter did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in 1 and 3 years. The use of NDIs instead of bone augmentation procedures with RDIs did not affect its survival rates, prosthesis success rates, and MBL in the short-term and middle-term. However, more high-quality randomized controlled trials and long follow-up studies are needed on this topic.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Allen Press Inc</pub><pmid>31536434</pmid><doi>10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00025</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0160-6972 |
| ispartof | The Journal of oral implantology, 2019-12, Vol.45 (6), p.503-508 |
| issn | 0160-6972 1548-1336 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2295472171 |
| source | MEDLINE; Allen Press Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Alveolar Bone Loss Bias Bone loss Clinical trials Collaboration Dental Implants Dental Prosthesis Design Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Dental Restoration Failure Dentistry Follow-Up Studies Fractures Humans Maxillofacial surgery Meta-analysis Periodontics Prostheses Quality Studies Success Survival |
| title | The Clinical Performance of Narrow Diameter Implants Versus Regular Diameter Implants: A Meta-Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-12T09%3A02%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Clinical%20Performance%20of%20Narrow%20Diameter%20Implants%20Versus%20Regular%20Diameter%20Implants:%20A%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20oral%20implantology&rft.au=Ma,%20Meng&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=503&rft.epage=508&rft.pages=503-508&rft.issn=0160-6972&rft.eissn=1548-1336&rft_id=info:doi/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00025&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2295472171%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2348843489&rft_id=info:pmid/31536434&rfr_iscdi=true |