Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research Pub Date : 2024-06-30 eCollection Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.5037/jomr.2024.15202
Pinny Abayov, Rafael Sarikov, Lisa-Marie Nazarenko, Oren Babich, Eliezer Haimov, Gintaras Juodzbalys
{"title":"Outcome Difference between Short and Longer Dental Implants Placed Simultaneously with Alveolar Bone Augmentation: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Pinny Abayov, Rafael Sarikov, Lisa-Marie Nazarenko, Oren Babich, Eliezer Haimov, Gintaras Juodzbalys","doi":"10.5037/jomr.2024.15202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide detailed insights into the clinical performance of short and longer dental implants placed simultaneously with bone augmentation.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The search for literature was performed across MEDLINE (PubMed), ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library databases, adhering to specific selection criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only articles published in English between 2014 and 2024 were considered for data collection. Primary outcomes were survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL) and complications. Clinical outcomes were as follows: bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Quality and risk of bias assessment were evaluated by the Critical Appraisal Checklist tool for randomized controlled trials developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14678 articles were screened, with 9 meeting the inclusion criteria and being utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 495 patients with 984 implants (491 short and 493 longer implants) showing a SR of 93.91% for the short implants and 91.83% for the longer implants. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant difference between short implants and longer implants simultaneously placed with alveolar bone augmentation in relation to MBL (-0.513 mm, 95% CI = -0.93 to -0.096; P = 0.02), and in PPD (-0.247, 95% CI = -0.515 to 0.022; P = 0.07).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>When comparing the results of treatment with short and longer dental implants combined with alveolar bone augmentation, short implants showed better clinical results regarding the parameters of survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications.</p>","PeriodicalId":53254,"journal":{"name":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11318658/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"eJournal of Oral Maxillofacial Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5037/jomr.2024.15202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to provide detailed insights into the clinical performance of short and longer dental implants placed simultaneously with bone augmentation.

Material and methods: The search for literature was performed across MEDLINE (PubMed), ScienceDirect and the Cochrane Library databases, adhering to specific selection criteria and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Only articles published in English between 2014 and 2024 were considered for data collection. Primary outcomes were survival rate (SR), marginal bone loss (MBL) and complications. Clinical outcomes were as follows: bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and implant stability quotient (ISQ). Quality and risk of bias assessment were evaluated by the Critical Appraisal Checklist tool for randomized controlled trials developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

Results: A total of 14678 articles were screened, with 9 meeting the inclusion criteria and being utilized for this systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 495 patients with 984 implants (491 short and 493 longer implants) showing a SR of 93.91% for the short implants and 91.83% for the longer implants. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant difference between short implants and longer implants simultaneously placed with alveolar bone augmentation in relation to MBL (-0.513 mm, 95% CI = -0.93 to -0.096; P = 0.02), and in PPD (-0.247, 95% CI = -0.515 to 0.022; P = 0.07).

Conclusions: When comparing the results of treatment with short and longer dental implants combined with alveolar bone augmentation, short implants showed better clinical results regarding the parameters of survival rate, marginal bone loss and complications.

与牙槽骨增量同时植入的短牙种植体和长牙种植体的效果差异:系统性回顾和元分析。
目的:本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在提供有关同时植入短型和长型牙科植入体与骨增量的临床表现的详细见解:在 MEDLINE (PubMed)、ScienceDirect 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中搜索文献,遵循特定的选择标准和系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目 (PRISMA) 指南。数据收集只考虑 2014 年至 2024 年间发表的英文文章。主要结果为存活率(SR)、边缘骨损失(MBL)和并发症。临床结果如下:探诊出血(BOP)、牙周袋深度(PPD)和种植体稳定性商数(ISQ)。采用乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(Joanna Briggs Institute)开发的随机对照试验关键评估清单工具对研究质量和偏倚风险进行评估:结果:共筛选出 14678 篇文章,其中 9 篇符合纳入标准,并被用于此次系统回顾和荟萃分析。共有 495 名患者接受了 984 个种植体(491 个短种植体和 493 个长种植体),结果显示短种植体的 SR 为 93.91%,长种植体的 SR 为 91.83%。Meta 分析显示,同时植入短种植体和长种植体并进行牙槽骨增量的患者,在 MBL(-0.513 毫米,95% CI = -0.93 至 -0.096;P = 0.02)和 PPD(-0.247,95% CI = -0.515 至 0.022;P = 0.07)方面存在显著统计学差异:在比较短种植体和长种植体结合牙槽骨增量的治疗效果时,短种植体在存活率、边缘骨损失和并发症等参数方面显示出更好的临床效果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
12 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