Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the available evidence in the literature to answer the following focused question: In partially edentulous arches with reduced bone width, do implants placed after horizontal bone augmentation exhibit differences in survival and success rate compared to narrow-diameter implants placed in native bone?
METHODS: A population, intervention, comparison and outcome question was defined and an electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases to identify all studies analysing the use of standard-diameter implants inserted in regenerated bone or narrow-diameter implants for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous atrophic maxillae and mandibles. Inclusion criteria and quality assessments were established, and studies were selected on this basis.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed cumulatively. A comparative meta-analysis was not possible due to the lack of studies directly comparing the two rehabilitation methods in question. A cumulative implant survival rate of 97.80% (1246/1274; pooled proportion 0.984, 95% confidence interval 0.977-0.991) was reported for the narrow implants placed in atrophic ridges, while similar results were obtained for the standard-diameter implants placed in regenerated bone, with a cumulative implant survival rate of 97.94% (1332/1360; pooled proportion 0.983, 95% confidence interval 0.976-0.990).
CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review found high and comparable survival rates between narrow- and standard-diameter implants placed in regenerated bone; however, well-designed randomised controlled trials are required to support the hypothesis that both treatment strategies are successful in comparable circumstances.
METHODS: A population, intervention, comparison and outcome question was defined and an electronic search was conducted using the MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane Oral Health Group databases to identify all studies analysing the use of standard-diameter implants inserted in regenerated bone or narrow-diameter implants for the rehabilitation of partially or completely edentulous atrophic maxillae and mandibles. Inclusion criteria and quality assessments were established, and studies were selected on this basis.
RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed cumulatively. A comparative meta-analysis was not possible due to the lack of studies directly comparing the two rehabilitation methods in question. A cumulative implant survival rate of 97.80% (1246/1274; pooled proportion 0.984, 95% confidence interval 0.977-0.991) was reported for the narrow implants placed in atrophic ridges, while similar results were obtained for the standard-diameter implants placed in regenerated bone, with a cumulative implant survival rate of 97.94% (1332/1360; pooled proportion 0.983, 95% confidence interval 0.976-0.990).
CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review found high and comparable survival rates between narrow- and standard-diameter implants placed in regenerated bone; however, well-designed randomised controlled trials are required to support the hypothesis that both treatment strategies are successful in comparable circumstances.
摘要：
目的：本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在研究文献中可用的证据来回答以下重点问题：在骨宽度减小的部分无牙弓中，与在天然骨中放置的窄直径植入物相比，水平骨增强后放置的植入物在存活率和成功率方面是否存在差异？
方法：A人群，干预，定义了比较和结局问题,并使用MEDLINE(通过PubMed)和CochraneOralHealthGroup数据库进行了电子搜索,以确定所有分析使用标准直径植入物插入再生骨或窄直径植入物修复部分或完全缺牙的萎缩性上颌骨和下颌骨的研究.制定了纳入标准和质量评估，并在此基础上进行了研究。
结果：24项研究符合纳入标准，并进行了累积分析。由于缺乏直接比较两种康复方法的研究，因此无法进行比较荟萃分析。据报道，狭窄植入物放置在萎缩性山脊中的累积植入物存活率为97.80％（1246/1274；合并比例0.984，95％置信区间0.977-0.991）。虽然对于放置在再生骨中的标准直径植入物获得了类似的结果，植入物的累积存活率为97.94%(1332/1360;合并比例0.983,95%置信区间0.976-0.990)。
结论：本系统综述发现，置于再生骨中的窄直径和标准直径植入物的存活率较高且相当；然而，需要精心设计的随机对照试验来支持以下假设:两种治疗策略在可比情况下都是成功的.
方法：A人群，干预，定义了比较和结局问题,并使用MEDLINE(通过PubMed)和CochraneOralHealthGroup数据库进行了电子搜索,以确定所有分析使用标准直径植入物插入再生骨或窄直径植入物修复部分或完全缺牙的萎缩性上颌骨和下颌骨的研究.制定了纳入标准和质量评估，并在此基础上进行了研究。
结果：24项研究符合纳入标准，并进行了累积分析。由于缺乏直接比较两种康复方法的研究，因此无法进行比较荟萃分析。据报道，狭窄植入物放置在萎缩性山脊中的累积植入物存活率为97.80％（1246/1274；合并比例0.984，95％置信区间0.977-0.991）。虽然对于放置在再生骨中的标准直径植入物获得了类似的结果，植入物的累积存活率为97.94%(1332/1360;合并比例0.983,95%置信区间0.976-0.990)。
结论：本系统综述发现，置于再生骨中的窄直径和标准直径植入物的存活率较高且相当；然而，需要精心设计的随机对照试验来支持以下假设:两种治疗策略在可比情况下都是成功的.
