Logotipo do repositório
 

Publicação:
Comparison of the use of titanium–zirconium alloy and titanium alloy in dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

dc.contributor.authorCruz, Ronaldo Silva [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorAraujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorFernandes Oliveira, Hiskell Francine [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorDe Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
dc.contributor.authorPellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorVerri, Fellippo Ramos [UNESP]
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversity of Western São Paulo - UNOESTE
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-06T16:07:57Z
dc.date.available2019-10-06T16:07:57Z
dc.date.issued2018-08-01
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the values of bone-implant contact (BIC) and removal torque (RTQ) reported in different animal studies for titanium–zirconium (TiZr) and titanium (Ti) dental implants. This review has been registered at PROSPERO under number CRD42016047745. We undertook an electronic search for data published up until November 2017 using the PubMed/Medline, Embase, and The Cochrane Library databases. Eligibility criteria included in vivo studies, comparisons between Ti and TiZr implants in the same study, and studies published in English that evaluated BIC and RTQ. After inclusion criteria, 8 studies were assessed for eligibility. Of the 8 studies, 7 analyzed BIC outcome and 3 analyzed RTQ outcome. Among such studies, 6 studies were considered for meta-analysis of quantitative for BIC and 2 studies for RTQ. There was no significant difference for BIC analysis (P ¼ .89; random ration [RR]: 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.14 to 2.72). The heterogeneity of the primary outcome studies was considered low (7.19; P ¼ .21; I 2 : 30%). However, the RTQ analysis showed different results favoring the TiZr dental implants (P ¼ .001; RR: 23.62; 95%CI: 9.15 to 38.10). Low heterogeneity was observed for RTQ (v 2 : 1.25; P ¼ .26; I 2 : 20%). Within the limitations of this study, there was no difference between TiZr and Ti alloys implants in terms of BIC. However, TiZr implants had higher RTQ than Ti alloys.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista Aracatuba Dental School
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Prosthodontics Presidente Prudente Dental School University of Western São Paulo - UNOESTE
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP – Univ Estadual Paulista Aracatuba Dental School
dc.format.extent305-312
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00233
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Oral Implantology, v. 44, n. 4, p. 305-312, 2018.
dc.identifier.doi10.1563/aaid-joi-D-17-00233
dc.identifier.issn1548-1336
dc.identifier.issn0160-6972
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85057577506
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/188434
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Oral Implantology
dc.rights.accessRightsAcesso restritopt
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectDental alloy
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectOsseointegration
dc.subjectTitanium
dc.subjectZirconium
dc.titleComparison of the use of titanium–zirconium alloy and titanium alloy in dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysisen
dc.typeResenhapt
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isDepartmentOfPublication5f53b343-da2a-4737-96ec-6e2389a6d704
relation.isDepartmentOfPublication.latestForDiscovery5f53b343-da2a-4737-96ec-6e2389a6d704
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication8b3335a4-1163-438a-a0e2-921a46e0380d
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery8b3335a4-1163-438a-a0e2-921a46e0380d
unesp.campusUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Faculdade de Odontologia, Araçatubapt
unesp.departmentMateriais odontológicos e Prótese - FOApt

Arquivos