Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Sinus Lift Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Maria Menini, Luigi Canullo, Paolo Pesce, Francesca Bixio, Francesco Bagnasco, Massimo Del Fabbro
{"title":"Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Sinus Lift Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Maria Menini, Luigi Canullo, Paolo Pesce, Francesca Bixio, Francesco Bagnasco, Massimo Del Fabbro","doi":"10.11607/jomi.11434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Implant rehabilitation has become one of the primary treatment options for both partial and total edentulism in contemporary dentistry. In the posterior maxilla, a challeng frequently arises from insufficient available bone volume; to overcome this limitation, sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedures are often necessary. Two main techniques are employed for this purpose: the lateral window approach and the transcrestal one.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures related to maxillary sinus augmentation and alternative options for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL up to January 31st, 2025 to identify randomized and non-randomized comparative clinical studies involving at least one group treated with maxillary SFE, with a minimum of 5 patients per group, in which PROMs were assessed. The focused question was: In patients requiring rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla, is there a protocol superior to others among SFE using lateral or transcrestal approach with or without grafting, and implant placement without augmentation, in terms of patient-reported outcome measures? Pairwise meta-analysis was undertaken to estimate the overall effect when at least two studies with similar treatment comparisons, reporting the same outcome, were found. The primary outcome was postoperative pain, measured using the VAS scale in the first seven days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were any other PROMs like postoperative symptoms or standard satisfaction questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The electronic search initially identified 104 articles. After deduplication, 56 articles were screened, and 12 studies (12 RCTs and 1 non-RCT) were finally included. Ten studies were judged at moderate risk of bias and one RCT at high risk. The non-RCT study was judged at moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis could be performed only for the proportion of patients reporting pain at 1, 3 and 7 days postoperatively. The graftless approach resulted in less pain at 3- and 7-days post-op compared to SFE with graft. Transcrestal SFE also showed less post-op discomfort than lateral SFE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results indicated that patients may experience reduced discomfort and inflammation when graftless procedures and transcrestal approaches are used. Overall, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the assessment of PROMs in the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.11434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Implant rehabilitation has become one of the primary treatment options for both partial and total edentulism in contemporary dentistry. In the posterior maxilla, a challeng frequently arises from insufficient available bone volume; to overcome this limitation, sinus floor elevation (SFE) procedures are often necessary. Two main techniques are employed for this purpose: the lateral window approach and the transcrestal one.

Purpose: to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures related to maxillary sinus augmentation and alternative options for the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla.

Study selection: An electronic search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane CENTRAL up to January 31st, 2025 to identify randomized and non-randomized comparative clinical studies involving at least one group treated with maxillary SFE, with a minimum of 5 patients per group, in which PROMs were assessed. The focused question was: In patients requiring rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla, is there a protocol superior to others among SFE using lateral or transcrestal approach with or without grafting, and implant placement without augmentation, in terms of patient-reported outcome measures? Pairwise meta-analysis was undertaken to estimate the overall effect when at least two studies with similar treatment comparisons, reporting the same outcome, were found. The primary outcome was postoperative pain, measured using the VAS scale in the first seven days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were any other PROMs like postoperative symptoms or standard satisfaction questionnaires.

Results: The electronic search initially identified 104 articles. After deduplication, 56 articles were screened, and 12 studies (12 RCTs and 1 non-RCT) were finally included. Ten studies were judged at moderate risk of bias and one RCT at high risk. The non-RCT study was judged at moderate risk of bias. Meta-analysis could be performed only for the proportion of patients reporting pain at 1, 3 and 7 days postoperatively. The graftless approach resulted in less pain at 3- and 7-days post-op compared to SFE with graft. Transcrestal SFE also showed less post-op discomfort than lateral SFE.

Conclusions: The results indicated that patients may experience reduced discomfort and inflammation when graftless procedures and transcrestal approaches are used. Overall, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the assessment of PROMs in the rehabilitation of atrophic posterior maxilla.

患者报告的鼻窦抬高手术的结果测量(PROMs):系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:种植体康复已成为当代牙科全牙和部分全牙的主要治疗选择之一。在上颌骨后,由于可用骨量不足而经常出现挑战;为了克服这一限制,通常需要进行窦底抬高(SFE)手术。两种主要的技术被用于此目的:侧窗入路和跨窗入路。目的:评估患者报告的与上颌窦增强术和萎缩后上颌康复相关的结果措施。研究选择:电子检索PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane CENTRAL,检索截止到2025年1月31日的随机和非随机对照临床研究,这些研究至少涉及一组接受上颌SFE治疗的患者,每组至少5例患者,其中评估了PROMs。重点问题是:就患者报告的结果衡量指标而言,在需要后上颌萎缩康复的患者中,是否有一种方案优于其他SFE方案,即采用外侧或经瓣入路,有或没有移植,种植体放置,没有增强?当发现至少两项具有相似治疗比较且报告相同结果的研究时,进行两两荟萃分析以估计总体效果。主要结局是术后疼痛,在术后前7天使用VAS量表测量。次要结局是术后症状或标准满意度问卷等任何其他问题。结果:电子检索初步鉴定出104篇文献。重复数据删除后,筛选56篇文章,最终纳入12项研究(12项随机对照试验和1项非随机对照试验)。10项研究被判定为中等偏倚风险,1项RCT被判定为高风险。该非rct研究被判定为中等偏倚风险。仅对术后1、3和7天报告疼痛的患者比例进行meta分析。与移植的SFE相比,无移植物入路术后3天和7天的疼痛更少。经颅SFE也比外侧SFE表现出更少的术后不适。结论:结果表明,当采用无移植物手术和经肛入路时,患者可以减少不适和炎症。总的来说,关于PROMs在萎缩后上颌骨康复中的评估证据不足。
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
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信