The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants · 2026
Marginal Bone Loss around Cement-Retained versus Screw‑Retained Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tabrizi Reza, Biabanaki Elaheh, Seyedan Kaveh, Davarpanah Mahsa, Nematollahi Zahra, Khanzadeh Hooman
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared marginal bone loss around cement-retained versus screw-retained single implant-supported crowns in partially edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials published in English from 2015 onward. Eligible studies compared cement-retained and screw-retained single implant-supported crowns and reported marginal bone loss after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2), and certainty assessment (GRADE) were performed independently by two reviewers. Aggregate study-level data were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials were included, comprising 154 cement-retained and 166 screw-retained restorations. The study-level random-effects meta-analysis showed no statistically significant overall difference in marginal bone loss between retention methods (MD = -0.17 mm; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.03; P = 0.079). Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 86.2%; τ² = 0.043), and the 95% prediction interval ranged from -0.70 to 0.37 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The study-level random-effects meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations. Both retention methods can achieve satisfactory marginal bone stability across the available follow-up periods when appropriate clinical protocols are followed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials published in English from 2015 onward. Eligible studies compared cement-retained and screw-retained single implant-supported crowns and reported marginal bone loss after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2), and certainty assessment (GRADE) were performed independently by two reviewers. Aggregate study-level data were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials were included, comprising 154 cement-retained and 166 screw-retained restorations. The study-level random-effects meta-analysis showed no statistically significant overall difference in marginal bone loss between retention methods (MD = -0.17 mm; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.03; P = 0.079). Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 86.2%; τ² = 0.043), and the 95% prediction interval ranged from -0.70 to 0.37 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The study-level random-effects meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations. Both retention methods can achieve satisfactory marginal bone stability across the available follow-up periods when appropriate clinical protocols are followed.