Premature Bone Resorption in Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials.

IF 4.8 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Faisal Faihan Alotaibi, Jacopo Buti, Isabella Rocchietta, Nor Shafina Mohamed Nazari, Rawan Almujaydil, Francesco D'Aiuto
{"title":"Premature Bone Resorption in Vertical Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Clinical Trials.","authors":"Faisal Faihan Alotaibi, Jacopo Buti, Isabella Rocchietta, Nor Shafina Mohamed Nazari, Rawan Almujaydil, Francesco D'Aiuto","doi":"10.1111/clr.14435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To systematically appraise the evidence on premature ridge resorption following various vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) techniques in healthy adult patients undergoing staged VRA procedures. The study aimed to identify VRA techniques resulting in the least premature bone resorption and to rank them using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (NMA).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in six databases to identify randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing staged VRA techniques with a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Relative premature bone resorption (PBR%) overall (primary) and in sites with uneventful versus complicated healing and need for additional bone grafting (NAG) (secondary) were chosen as outcomes. The risk of bias and certainty in evidence were assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and GRADE tools. Bayesian models estimated treatment effects and rankings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten RCTs, involving 220 participants and 236 defects, were included. Nine RCTs reported mean PBR%, with a range from 6% to 44%, averaging 26%. Seven treatment groups were evaluated: onlay, onlay + barrier, inlay, guided bone regeneration, distraction osteogenesis (DO), tissue expansion + tunnelling (TET), and cortical tenting. Eight RCTs, involving 160 participants and 176 defects, contributed to the NMA. Compared to onlay, all groups had lower mean PBR%. Inlay had the highest probability of being ranked first (Pr = 0.55), followed by DO (Pr = 0.27) and TET (Pr = 0.15). Healing complications significantly increased PBR% (MD 10%, 95% CrI 4.4-15.7).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>VRA techniques preserving the periosteum (inlay, DO, and TET) exhibit less PBR compared with other techniques. When techniques involve full flap elevation, clinicians should anticipate volume loss at re-entry and consider greater grafting volumes to offset PBR. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42023394396; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394396.</p>","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14435","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To systematically appraise the evidence on premature ridge resorption following various vertical ridge augmentation (VRA) techniques in healthy adult patients undergoing staged VRA procedures. The study aimed to identify VRA techniques resulting in the least premature bone resorption and to rank them using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (NMA).

Material and methods: Searches were conducted in six databases to identify randomised clinical trials (RCT) comparing staged VRA techniques with a minimum of 3 months follow-up. Relative premature bone resorption (PBR%) overall (primary) and in sites with uneventful versus complicated healing and need for additional bone grafting (NAG) (secondary) were chosen as outcomes. The risk of bias and certainty in evidence were assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and GRADE tools. Bayesian models estimated treatment effects and rankings.

Results: Ten RCTs, involving 220 participants and 236 defects, were included. Nine RCTs reported mean PBR%, with a range from 6% to 44%, averaging 26%. Seven treatment groups were evaluated: onlay, onlay + barrier, inlay, guided bone regeneration, distraction osteogenesis (DO), tissue expansion + tunnelling (TET), and cortical tenting. Eight RCTs, involving 160 participants and 176 defects, contributed to the NMA. Compared to onlay, all groups had lower mean PBR%. Inlay had the highest probability of being ranked first (Pr = 0.55), followed by DO (Pr = 0.27) and TET (Pr = 0.15). Healing complications significantly increased PBR% (MD 10%, 95% CrI 4.4-15.7).

Conclusion: VRA techniques preserving the periosteum (inlay, DO, and TET) exhibit less PBR compared with other techniques. When techniques involve full flap elevation, clinicians should anticipate volume loss at re-entry and consider greater grafting volumes to offset PBR. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID: CRD42023394396; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394396.

目的系统评估在健康成年患者中接受分阶段 VRA 手术的各种垂直嵴增量(VRA)技术后骨嵴过早吸收的证据。研究旨在确定导致骨质过早吸收最少的 VRA 技术,并使用贝叶斯网络元分析(NMA)对其进行排序:在六个数据库中进行搜索,以确定至少随访 3 个月的比较分阶段 VRA 技术的随机临床试验 (RCT)。试验结果包括总体过早骨吸收率(PBR%)(主要结果)、愈合不顺利部位与愈合复杂部位的相对过早骨吸收率(PBR%)以及是否需要额外植骨(NAG)(次要结果)。使用 Cochrane RoB 2.0 和 GRADE 工具评估了偏倚风险和证据的确定性。贝叶斯模型估计了治疗效果和排名:共纳入 10 项 RCT,涉及 220 名参与者和 236 个缺陷。九项 RCT 报告了平均 PBR%,范围从 6% 到 44%,平均为 26%。共评估了七个治疗组:镶嵌、镶嵌+屏障、镶嵌、引导骨再生、牵引成骨(DO)、组织扩张+隧道(TET)和皮质帐篷。八项 RCT(涉及 160 名参与者和 176 处缺损)为 NMA 做出了贡献。与嵌体相比,所有组的平均PBR%都较低。镶牙的概率最高(Pr = 0.55),其次是DO(Pr = 0.27)和TET(Pr = 0.15)。愈合并发症明显增加了PBR%(MD 10%,95% CrI 4.4-15.7):结论:与其他技术相比,保留骨膜的 VRA 技术(嵌体、DO 和 TET)显示出较低的 PBR。结论:与其他技术相比,保留骨膜的 VRA 技术(嵌合、DO 和 TET)显示出较少的 PBR。当技术涉及皮瓣完全抬高时,临床医生应预计再入路时的容积损失,并考虑加大移植量以抵消 PBR。协议注册:PROPERGO ID:CRD42023394396; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=394396.
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
Clinical Oral Implants Research
Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
11.60%
发文量
149
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.
×
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