The objective of this study was to perform a quality analysis of systematic reviews with meta-analyses that focused on the comparison of platform-switching (implant-abutment mismatching) and platform-matched (PM) implants. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) and Glenny (Checklist) Scales were used to qualify the studies. PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Web of Science (formerly ISI Web of Knowledge), and Cochrane databases were searched, by topic, for systematic reviews on dental implants with switching platforms. A total of 8 systematic reviews, including 7 studies with meta-analyses, were selected. The AMSTAR scale indicated a high (n = 6) to moderate (n = 2) score for the included studies. The quantitative analysis indicated that platform-switching implants preserved more bone tissue when compared with platform-matched implants (6 meta-analyses; P < .001, smaller mean difference: −0.29 mm, 95% CI: −0.38, −0.19 and greater mean difference: −0.49 mm, 95% CI: −0.73, −0.26). Quantitative analysis based on 7 systematic reviews with meta-analysis indicated positive peri-implant bone preservation for implants restored with an implant-abutment mismatching (PSW). Further, there is evidence to improve the design of current systematic reviews. Future systematic reviews in this thematic area should consider searches in gray literature and different databases and include only randomized controlled clinical studies.
Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Platform-Switching vs Platform-Matched Implants: An Overview
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Joel Ferreira Santiago, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos, Jéssica Marcela de Luna Gomes, Fellippo Ramos Verri, Sandra Lucia Dantas Moraes, Eduardo Piza Pellizzer; Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews on Platform-Switching vs Platform-Matched Implants: An Overview. J Oral Implantol 1 April 2020; 46 (2): 153–162. doi: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00114
Download citation file: