A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis
One-step dental implant surgery with a 1-piece implant has been introduced with the aim of simplifying and increasing the effectiveness of treatment and providing greater comfort for the patient. Whether these goals have been met compared with conventional 2-piece implants remains unclear. The purpo...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2020-10, Vol.124 (4), p.439-445 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 445 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 439 |
container_title | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry |
container_volume | 124 |
creator | de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela Minatel, Lurian Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza |
description | One-step dental implant surgery with a 1-piece implant has been introduced with the aim of simplifying and increasing the effectiveness of treatment and providing greater comfort for the patient. Whether these goals have been met compared with conventional 2-piece implants remains unclear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants in terms of marginal bone loss and implant survival rate.
This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was recorded in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD 42018095721). A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published up to May 2018. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was, “Do patients who received 1-piece implants show similar marginal bone loss, survival rates, and complications as those who receive 2-piece implants?”
The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Implant survival rate was analyzed by using a dichotomous outcome, measured according to risk ratio (RR) and marginal bone loss by continuously evaluating the outcomes according to the mean difference (MD), both with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Five studies, including 270 participants with a mean age of 54.70 years and receiving 434 dental implants, were included. The mean follow-up period was 4 years. Meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference in relation to implant survival rate (P=.85; RR: −0.89; CI: −0.27 to 2.98), as well as to marginal bone loss (P=.85; MD: −0.43; CI: −0.43 to −0.52).
One- and 2-piece implants demonstrated effectiveness in the rehabilitation of patients requiring dental implants. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.002 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2329735230</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022391318308618</els_id><sourcerecordid>2329735230</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-c5f387a8348f819b4a01526f5a71130e702682715efe3b717f52919324aa21803</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtP6zAQhS0EgvL4C8jLu0nw2EnssKJC9wJSJTawtlxnIrnKC0_KVf89rlrYshrN6Jw5Mx9jtyByEFDdbfIpjtTgMOdSQJ0LkwshT9gCRK2zyhRwyhZpIjNVg7pgl0QbIYQpNZyzCwWmklBUC2aX3HdhCN513I_95GKgceBjyyGbAnrknxhpS1we29BPnRtmuudLTjuasXdz8DziZ8D_3A0N73F2mRtct6NA1-ysdR3hzbFesfd_f98en7PV69PL43KVeVWZOfNlq4x2RhWmNVCvCyeglFVbOg2gBGohKyM1lNiiWmvQbSlrqJUsnJNghLpifw57E5aPLdJs-0Aeu3QrjluyUslaq1KqvbQ6SH0iSBFbO8XQu7izIOwert3Yb7h2D9cKYxPKZLw9ZmzXPTY_tm-aSfBwEGD6NPGIlnzAwWMTIvrZNmP4LeMLH1WNPQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2329735230</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino ; Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo ; de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela ; Minatel, Lurian ; Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creator><creatorcontrib>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino ; Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo ; de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela ; Minatel, Lurian ; Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creatorcontrib><description>One-step dental implant surgery with a 1-piece implant has been introduced with the aim of simplifying and increasing the effectiveness of treatment and providing greater comfort for the patient. Whether these goals have been met compared with conventional 2-piece implants remains unclear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants in terms of marginal bone loss and implant survival rate.
This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was recorded in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD 42018095721). A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published up to May 2018. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was, “Do patients who received 1-piece implants show similar marginal bone loss, survival rates, and complications as those who receive 2-piece implants?”
The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Implant survival rate was analyzed by using a dichotomous outcome, measured according to risk ratio (RR) and marginal bone loss by continuously evaluating the outcomes according to the mean difference (MD), both with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Five studies, including 270 participants with a mean age of 54.70 years and receiving 434 dental implants, were included. The mean follow-up period was 4 years. Meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference in relation to implant survival rate (P=.85; RR: −0.89; CI: −0.27 to 2.98), as well as to marginal bone loss (P=.85; MD: −0.43; CI: −0.43 to −0.52).
One- and 2-piece implants demonstrated effectiveness in the rehabilitation of patients requiring dental implants.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3913</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6841</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.002</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31862146</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Bone Diseases, Metabolic ; Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Dental Restoration Failure ; Dentistry ; Humans ; Middle Aged</subject><ispartof>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2020-10, Vol.124 (4), p.439-445</ispartof><rights>2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-c5f387a8348f819b4a01526f5a71130e702682715efe3b717f52919324aa21803</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-c5f387a8348f819b4a01526f5a71130e702682715efe3b717f52919324aa21803</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391318308618$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31862146$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minatel, Lurian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creatorcontrib><title>A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><title>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</title><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><description>One-step dental implant surgery with a 1-piece implant has been introduced with the aim of simplifying and increasing the effectiveness of treatment and providing greater comfort for the patient. Whether these goals have been met compared with conventional 2-piece implants remains unclear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants in terms of marginal bone loss and implant survival rate.
This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was recorded in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD 42018095721). A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published up to May 2018. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was, “Do patients who received 1-piece implants show similar marginal bone loss, survival rates, and complications as those who receive 2-piece implants?”
The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Implant survival rate was analyzed by using a dichotomous outcome, measured according to risk ratio (RR) and marginal bone loss by continuously evaluating the outcomes according to the mean difference (MD), both with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Five studies, including 270 participants with a mean age of 54.70 years and receiving 434 dental implants, were included. The mean follow-up period was 4 years. Meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference in relation to implant survival rate (P=.85; RR: −0.89; CI: −0.27 to 2.98), as well as to marginal bone loss (P=.85; MD: −0.43; CI: −0.43 to −0.52).
One- and 2-piece implants demonstrated effectiveness in the rehabilitation of patients requiring dental implants.</description><subject>Bone Diseases, Metabolic</subject><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Dental Restoration Failure</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><issn>0022-3913</issn><issn>1097-6841</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtP6zAQhS0EgvL4C8jLu0nw2EnssKJC9wJSJTawtlxnIrnKC0_KVf89rlrYshrN6Jw5Mx9jtyByEFDdbfIpjtTgMOdSQJ0LkwshT9gCRK2zyhRwyhZpIjNVg7pgl0QbIYQpNZyzCwWmklBUC2aX3HdhCN513I_95GKgceBjyyGbAnrknxhpS1we29BPnRtmuudLTjuasXdz8DziZ8D_3A0N73F2mRtct6NA1-ysdR3hzbFesfd_f98en7PV69PL43KVeVWZOfNlq4x2RhWmNVCvCyeglFVbOg2gBGohKyM1lNiiWmvQbSlrqJUsnJNghLpifw57E5aPLdJs-0Aeu3QrjluyUslaq1KqvbQ6SH0iSBFbO8XQu7izIOwert3Yb7h2D9cKYxPKZLw9ZmzXPTY_tm-aSfBwEGD6NPGIlnzAwWMTIvrZNmP4LeMLH1WNPQ</recordid><startdate>202010</startdate><enddate>202010</enddate><creator>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino</creator><creator>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo</creator><creator>de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela</creator><creator>Minatel, Lurian</creator><creator>Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini</creator><creator>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creator><general>Elsevier 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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202010</creationdate><title>A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis</title><author>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino ; Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo ; de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela ; Minatel, Lurian ; Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini ; Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-c5f387a8348f819b4a01526f5a71130e702682715efe3b717f52919324aa21803</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bone Diseases, Metabolic</topic><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Dental Restoration Failure</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minatel, Lurian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>de Oliveira Limírio, João Pedro Justino</au><au>Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo</au><au>de Luna Gomes, Jéssica Marcela</au><au>Minatel, Lurian</au><au>Alves Rezende, Maria Cristina Rosifini</au><au>Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of prosthetic dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthet Dent</addtitle><date>2020-10</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>124</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>439</spage><epage>445</epage><pages>439-445</pages><issn>0022-3913</issn><eissn>1097-6841</eissn><abstract>One-step dental implant surgery with a 1-piece implant has been introduced with the aim of simplifying and increasing the effectiveness of treatment and providing greater comfort for the patient. Whether these goals have been met compared with conventional 2-piece implants remains unclear.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the use of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants in terms of marginal bone loss and implant survival rate.
This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was recorded in the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD 42018095721). A literature search was conducted in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published up to May 2018. The population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was, “Do patients who received 1-piece implants show similar marginal bone loss, survival rates, and complications as those who receive 2-piece implants?”
The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Implant survival rate was analyzed by using a dichotomous outcome, measured according to risk ratio (RR) and marginal bone loss by continuously evaluating the outcomes according to the mean difference (MD), both with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Five studies, including 270 participants with a mean age of 54.70 years and receiving 434 dental implants, were included. The mean follow-up period was 4 years. Meta-analysis did not reveal a significant difference in relation to implant survival rate (P=.85; RR: −0.89; CI: −0.27 to 2.98), as well as to marginal bone loss (P=.85; MD: −0.43; CI: −0.43 to −0.52).
One- and 2-piece implants demonstrated effectiveness in the rehabilitation of patients requiring dental implants.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>31862146</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.002</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-3913 |
ispartof | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2020-10, Vol.124 (4), p.439-445 |
issn | 0022-3913 1097-6841 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2329735230 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | Bone Diseases, Metabolic Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Dental Restoration Failure Dentistry Humans Middle Aged |
title | A clinical comparison of 1-piece versus 2-piece implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T15%3A23%3A35IST&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=A%20clinical%20comparison%20of%201-piece%20versus%202-piece%20implants:%20A%20systematic%20review%20and%20meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20prosthetic%20dentistry&rft.au=de%20Oliveira%20Lim%C3%ADrio,%20Jo%C3%A3o%20Pedro%20Justino&rft.date=2020-10&rft.volume=124&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=439&rft.epage=445&rft.pages=439-445&rft.issn=0022-3913&rft.eissn=1097-6841&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2329735230%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=2329735230&rft_id=info:pmid/31862146&rft_els_id=S0022391318308618&rfr_iscdi=true |