Comparative efficacy of flapped versus flapless dental implant procedures: A meta-analysis.

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Preet Jain, Meetu Jain, Chetan Sharma, Rahul N Gaikwad, Amit Porwal, Diplina Barman, Rounik Talukdar, Nitish Rai
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of flapped versus flapless dental implant procedures: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Preet Jain, Meetu Jain, Chetan Sharma, Rahul N Gaikwad, Amit Porwal, Diplina Barman, Rounik Talukdar, Nitish Rai","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Dental implant procedures are crucial for replacing missing teeth, with various surgical techniques impacting the outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of flapped and flapless surgical techniques on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included clinical studies with at least ten subjects, excluding review articles, editorials, and conference abstracts. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Medline, ERIC, and Wiley, published between 2000 and 2022. Data were analyzed using random-effects models to compare implant survival and MBL between flapped and flapless techniques.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The review identified 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Flapless techniques showed a higher implant survival rate with an approximate survival rate of 98.6% in prospective cohort studies and 95.9% in retrospective studies. MBL was consistently lower in the flapless group, averaging 0.6-2.1 mm, compared to 1.5-3 mm in the flapped group. Low-risk studies demonstrated more consistent and reliable results, supporting the efficacy of flapless procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Flapless implant surgery offers a viable alternative to traditional flapped surgery, showing higher rates of implant survival and less MBL. However, successful outcomes depend on advanced imaging, precise surgical techniques, and adequate training. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":47093,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS","volume":"18 4","pages":"58-69"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226941/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Dental implant procedures are crucial for replacing missing teeth, with various surgical techniques impacting the outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of flapped and flapless surgical techniques on implant survival and marginal bone loss (MBL).

Methods: We included clinical studies with at least ten subjects, excluding review articles, editorials, and conference abstracts. Studies were sourced from PubMed, Medline, ERIC, and Wiley, published between 2000 and 2022. Data were analyzed using random-effects models to compare implant survival and MBL between flapped and flapless techniques.

Results: The review identified 21 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Flapless techniques showed a higher implant survival rate with an approximate survival rate of 98.6% in prospective cohort studies and 95.9% in retrospective studies. MBL was consistently lower in the flapless group, averaging 0.6-2.1 mm, compared to 1.5-3 mm in the flapped group. Low-risk studies demonstrated more consistent and reliable results, supporting the efficacy of flapless procedures.

Conclusion: Flapless implant surgery offers a viable alternative to traditional flapped surgery, showing higher rates of implant survival and less MBL. However, successful outcomes depend on advanced imaging, precise surgical techniques, and adequate training. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm these findings and refine clinical recommendations.

翻瓣与无瓣种植牙手术的疗效比较:荟萃分析
目的:种植牙手术对缺失牙的修复至关重要,各种手术技术都会影响手术效果。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估翻瓣和无瓣手术技术对种植体存活率和边缘骨损失(MBL)的影响:我们纳入了至少有十名受试者的临床研究,但不包括评论文章、社论和会议摘要。研究来源于 PubMed、Medline、ERIC 和 Wiley,发表时间为 2000 年至 2022 年。使用随机效应模型对数据进行分析,比较翻瓣和无瓣技术的种植体存活率和 MBL:结果:综述确定了 21 项符合纳入标准的研究。无瓣技术的种植体存活率更高,前瞻性队列研究中的存活率约为 98.6%,回顾性研究中的存活率约为 95.9%。无瓣组的 MBL 一直较低,平均为 0.6-2.1 毫米,而有瓣组为 1.5-3 毫米。低风险研究显示了更一致、更可靠的结果,支持了无瓣手术的有效性:结论:无瓣种植手术为传统翻瓣手术提供了一种可行的替代方案,显示出更高的种植体存活率和更少的 MBL。然而,成功的结果取决于先进的成像技术、精确的手术技巧和充分的培训。需要进一步的高质量研究来证实这些发现并完善临床建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS
International Journal of Health Sciences-IJHS MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
自引率
15.00%
发文量
49
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信