Abstract
Statement of problem
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.
Purpose
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.
Material and methods
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?”
Results
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).
Conclusions
One- and 2-piece implants demonstrated effectiveness in the rehabilitation of patients
requiring dental implants.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 2-21
- Implant treatment of patients with edentulous jaws: a 20-year follow-up.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008; 10: 207-217
- Outcome of oral implant treatment in partially edentulous jaws followed 20 years in clinical function.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2006; 8: 178-186
- Tissue integrated prostheses. osseointegration in clinical dentistry.Quintessence, Chicago1985: 11-76
- Comparison of immediately loaded flapless-placed one-piece implants and flapped-placed conventionally loaded two-piece implants, both fitted with all-ceramic single crowns, in the posterior mandible: 3-year results from a randomised controlled pilot trial.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 179-195
- Clinical and radiographic evaluation of one-piece implants used for immediate function.J Oral Implantol. 2007; 33: 152-155
- Radiographical and histological characteristics of submerged and non submerged titanium implants. An experimental study in the Labrador dog.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 7: 20
- Clinical and radiographical features of submerged and non-submerged titanium implants.Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5: 185-189
- Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Brånemark implants.Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993; 4: 151-157
- A esthetic implant restorations in partially edentulous patients–acritical appraisal.Periodontol 2000. 1998; 17: 132-150
- Vertical distance from the crest of bone to the height of the interproximal papilla between adjacent implants.J Periodontol. 2003; 74: 1785-1788
- Persistent acute inflammation at implant-abutment interface.J Dent Res. 2003; 82: 232-237
- One-piece implants: placement timing, surgical technique, loading protocol, and marginal bone loss.J Prosthodont. 2013; 22: 237-244
- Immediate loading of definitive implants in the edentulous mandible using a fixed provisional prosthesis: the denture conversion technique.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004; 62: 106-115
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.Int J Surg. 2010; 8: 336-341
- Smoking and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent. 2015; 43: 487-498
- Prevalences of peri-implantitis and periimplant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent. 2017; 62: 1-12
- Comparison of external and internal implant-abutment connections for implant supported prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Dent. 2018; 70: 14-22
- Feasibility and influence of the microgap of two implants placed in a non-submerged procedure: a five-year follow-up clinical trial.J Periodontol. 2006; 77: 1051-1060
- Findings of a four-year randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two-piece and one-piece zirconia abutments supporting single prosthetic restorations in maxillary anterior region.Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 8767845
- Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two dental implants with different neck configurations.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19: 512-522
- Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing one-piece and two-piece dental implants supporting fixed and removable dental prostheses: 4- to 6-year observations.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1553-1559
- Risk factors for technical and biological complications with zirconia single crowns.Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 1999-2006
- A systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical outcome of zirconia implant-restoration complex.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 18: 30082-30083
- Systematic review of outcome measurements and reference group(s) to evaluate and compare implant success and failure.J Clin Periodontol. 2012; 39: 122-132
Article info
Publication history
Published online: December 19, 2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
