Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Cases. Mar 26, 2020; 8(6): 1087-1103
Published online Mar 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i6.1087
Published online Mar 26, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i6.1087
Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies
Ref. | Study design | Participants | Intervention | Outcomes | Follow-up | Loss (%)a | ||||||||||
Number of patients | Mean (range) age | Gender | Number of implants | Implant type, system and size | Implant location | Guided or free-hand | Tools for flapless surgery | Prostheses | Implant survival rate (%) | Marginal bone loss (mean ± SD, mm) | Complication rate (%) | Other measures | ||||
Bömicke et al[26], 2017 | RCT | 38 (F: 19; C: 19) | 53 (21-70) | Female: 22; Male: 16 | 38 (F: 19; C: 19) | One-piece (NobelDirect Groovy, Nobel Biocare) and two-piece (NobelReplace Tapered Groovy, Nobel Biocare), Ø 4.3-5.0 × 10.0 mm | Posterior mandible | Guided | Punch | Single-crown | F: 95%; C: 100% | F: 1.34 ± 1.19; C: 0.67±0.37 | F: 32%; C: 31% | Prosthesis failure; PPD; PI; GI | 3 yr | 3 (8%) |
Cannizzaro et al[27], 2008 | RCT | 40 (F: 20; C: 20) | 39 (18-64) | Female: 21; Male: 19 | 108 (F: 52; C: 56) | Two-piece (Tapered SwissPlus, Zimmer Dental), Ø 3.7-4.8 × 10.0-14.0 mm | Maxilla and mandible | Guided | Drill | Single-crown | F: 100%; C: 100% | NR | F: 19%; C: 16% | Prosthesis failure; postoperative oedema and pain; analgesic consumption; implant stability quotient | 3 yr | 0 (0%) |
Cooper et al[28], 2014 | PC | 113 (F: 68; C: 45) | 43 | Female: 66; Male: 47 | 113 (F: 68; C: 45) | Two-piece (OsseoSpeed, Dentsply Implants), Ø 3.5-5.0 × 11.0-17.0 mm | Maxilla except the molars | NR | NR | Single-crown | NR | NR | NR | Mucosal zenith position | 5 yr | 19 (17%) |
Froum et al[29], 2017b | RCT | 60 (F: 30; C: 30) | NAb | Female: 35; Male: 25 | 60 (F: 30; C: 30) | One-piece (NobelDirect, Nobel Biocare), Ø 4.3-5.0 × 10+ mm | Maxilla and mandible | Guided | Punch | Single-crown | F: 100%; C: 100% | F: 0.36 ± 0.63; C: 0.23 ± 0.95 | NAc | PPD; BoP; interproximal papilla levels | 8.6 yr | 32 (53%) |
Jesch et al[30], 2018 | RC | 7783 | NR | NR | 18945(F: 17517; C: 1428) | Two-piece (ANKYLOS, Dentsply Implants), Ø 3.5+ × ? mm | Maxilla and mandible | NR | Punch | Implant-support prostheses | F: 93%; C: 92% | NR | NR | None | 10 yr | 7018 (90%) |
Maló et al[31], 2015 | PC | 41 (F: 20; C: 21) | 46 (19-79) | Female: 22; Male: 19 | 72 (F: 32; C: 40) | Two-piece (NobelSpeedy Groovy, Nobel Biocare), Ø 4.0 × 10.0-15.0 mm | Maxilla and mandible | Free-hand | Drill | Single-crown or fixed partial prostheses | F: 97%; C: 100% | F: 1.60 ± 1.22; C: 1.14 ± 0.49 | F: 29%; C: 11% | None | 3 yr | 8 (20%) |
Naeini et al[32], 2018d | PC | 49 | 53 (20-79) | Female: 27; Male: 22 | 53 (F: 28; C: 25) | Two-piece (Brånemark system, Nobel Biocare), Ø 3.3-5.0 × 7.0-18.0 mm | Maxilla and mandible | Free-hand | Drill | Single-crown | F: 100%; C: 100% | F: -0.89 ± 0.96; C: 0.49 ± 1.12 | F: 5 (22); C: 4 (15) | PI; BI; PPD | 6-9 yr | 13 (27%) |
Oliva et al[33], 2010 | PC | 378 | 48 (19-80) | Female: 227; Male: 151 | 831 (F: 323; C: 508) | One-piece (CeraRoot type 11, 12, 14, 16, and 21, Oral Iceberg), Ø 3.5-4.8 × ? mm | Maxilla and mandible | Guided | NR | Implant-support prostheses | F: 99%; C: 93% | NR | NR | None | 3.4 yr | 0 (0%) |
Pisoni et al[4], 2016 | RCT | 45 | 61 | Female: 6; Male:39 | 76 (F: 42; C: 34) | Two-piece (SLA standard, Straumann), Ø 4.1 × ? mm | Posterior maxilla and mandible | Guided | Punch | Implant-support prostheses | F: 100%; C: 100% | F: 0.20 ± 0.76; C: 0.17 ± 0.94 | NR | None | 3 yr | 5 (11%) |
Prati et al[34], 2016 | PC | 60 | 56 (25-72) | Female: 26; Male:34 | 132 (F: 66; C: 66) | Two-piece (PrimaConnex, Keystone Dental), Ø 3.5-5.0 × ? mm | Maxilla and mandible | Free-hand | Drill | Single-crown | F: 97%; C: 98% | F: 1.22 ± 0.87; C: 1.23 ± 0.88 | F: 0%; C: 0% | PI; SBI; BoP; Microtopographic observations | 3 yr | 0 (0%) |
- Citation: Cai H, Liang X, Sun DY, Chen JY. Long-term clinical performance of flapless implant surgery compared to the conventional approach with flap elevation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(6): 1087-1103
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i6/1087.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i6.1087