Is the clinical performance of internal conical connection better than internal non-conical connection for implant-supported restorations? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributor.authorRodrigues, Vitor Venâncio Moreira
dc.contributor.authorFaé, Daniele Sorgatto
dc.contributor.authorRosa, Cleber Davi Del Rei Daltro [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorBento, Victor Augusto Alves [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLacerda, Mariane Floriano Lopes Santos
dc.contributor.authorPellizzer, Eduardo Piza [UNESP]
dc.contributor.authorLemos, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo
dc.contributor.institutionFederal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF)
dc.contributor.institutionUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-29T13:42:11Z
dc.date.available2023-07-29T13:42:11Z
dc.date.issued2023-06-01
dc.description.abstractPurpose: To evaluate bone loss, prosthodontics and biological complications, and implant survival rates of internal conical connections (ICC) compared with internal non-conical connection (INCC) implants. Methods: The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237170). Meta-analysis was performed using standardized mean difference (SMD) for bone loss and risk ratio (RR) for implant survival and complication rates. Risk of bias analysis was evaluated using RoB 2.0, whereas the GRADE tool was used to evaluate the certainty of evidence. A systematic search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and ProQuest databases was performed independently by two reviewers for articles published up to March 2022. The search criteria had no language or publication date restrictions. Handsearching analysis was performed in the reference list of potential articles. Results: Twelve randomized clinical trials, including 678 patients and 1006 implants (ICC [n = 476]; INCC [n = 530]), were included. Meta-analysis revealed that ICC demonstrated a lower risk for marginal bone loss (SMD: −0.80 mm; p = 0.004) and prosthodontics complications (RR: 0.16; p = 0.01) than INCC. However, both internal connections demonstrated no significant difference in implant survival rates (RR: 0.54; p = 0.10) and biological complications (RR: 0.90; p = 0.82). The overall risk of bias revealed some concerns and a low risk of bias for most of the included studies. However, the certainty of evidence of outcomes was considered low to moderate. Conclusion: ICC may be considered a more favorable treatment option than INCC owing to greater preservation of peri-implant bone tissue and a lower probability of prosthodontics complications. However, well-conducted studies with long-term follow-up are warranted.en
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dentistry Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais
dc.description.affiliationPostgraduate Program in Applied Health Sciences (PPGCAS) Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais
dc.description.affiliationDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual Paulista, São Paulo
dc.description.affiliationUnespDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School UNESP-Univ Estadual Paulista, São Paulo
dc.format.extent382-391
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13655
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Prosthodontics, v. 32, n. 5, p. 382-391, 2023.
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/jopr.13655
dc.identifier.issn1532-849X
dc.identifier.issn1059-941X
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85148295346
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/248373
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Prosthodontics
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectimplant–abutment
dc.subjectinternal butt joint
dc.subjectinternal hexagon
dc.subjecttapered
dc.subjecttri-channel
dc.titleIs the clinical performance of internal conical connection better than internal non-conical connection for implant-supported restorations? A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trialsen
dc.typeResenha

Arquivos

Coleções

Artigos - Materiais Odontológicos e Prótese - FOA