Comparison of Stud- Retentor Versus Bar-Clip Attachment as Implant- Supported Systems Used in Overdentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-08-30 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2338deCastro19

F M C de Castro, G Z Martins, H F P de Oliveira, P B Hernández, S Gavinha, G V O Fernandes

{"title":"Comparison of Stud- Retentor Versus Bar-Clip Attachment as Implant- Supported Systems Used in Overdentures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"F M C de Castro, G Z Martins, H F P de Oliveira, P B Hernández, S Gavinha, G V O Fernandes","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2338deCastro19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the results obtained clinically for bar-clip versus stud-retainers in overdentures. Three databases (PubMed Central, MEDLINE, and BvSalud) were used beyond a manual search. The study followed strictly the inclusion and exclusion criteria, considering the PICO strategy. For the risk of bias and quality assessment of studies, in the case of RCT, there were six domains of analysis, and for non-RCT studies, the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was performed. A meta-analysis was developed using the available data for marginal bone loss (MBL) and survival rate. 25 studies were included. The stud-retentor had the lowest implant SR (87.6%) and the greatest MBL (1.96 mm). For the bar-clip system, the mean survival rate was 95.91%, with only 4 studies included for this system, and the mean MBL was 1.13 mm. Only 3 studies directly compared both systems quantitatively, showing a significantly greater MBL toward the stud-retention group. The results may not allow determination of the best system for overdenture (stud retentor or bar-clip). Therefore, most of the studies suggested the stud-retentor as a more preferable system due to better distribution of forces, biological peri-implant behavior, low-cost, and ease for removal facilitating the sanitization and/or repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":" ","pages":"169-187"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2338deCastro19","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the results obtained clinically for bar-clip versus stud-retainers in overdentures. Three databases (PubMed Central, MEDLINE, and BvSalud) were used beyond a manual search. The study followed strictly the inclusion and exclusion criteria, considering the PICO strategy. For the risk of bias and quality assessment of studies, in the case of RCT, there were six domains of analysis, and for non-RCT studies, the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was performed. A meta-analysis was developed using the available data for marginal bone loss (MBL) and survival rate. 25 studies were included. The stud-retentor had the lowest implant SR (87.6%) and the greatest MBL (1.96 mm). For the bar-clip system, the mean survival rate was 95.91%, with only 4 studies included for this system, and the mean MBL was 1.13 mm. Only 3 studies directly compared both systems quantitatively, showing a significantly greater MBL toward the stud-retention group. The results may not allow determination of the best system for overdenture (stud retentor or bar-clip). Therefore, most of the studies suggested the stud-retentor as a more preferable system due to better distribution of forces, biological peri-implant behavior, low-cost, and ease for removal facilitating the sanitization and/or repair.

查看原文本刊更多论文

螺柱-固位器与棒夹附着体作为种植支撑系统用于覆盖义齿的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。

本研究旨在进行系统回顾和荟萃分析，以分析在覆盖义齿中使用棒夹与牙钉固位器的临床结果。除了手动搜索外，还使用了三个数据库(PubMed Central、MEDLINE和BvSalud)。考虑到PICO策略，本研究严格遵循纳入和排除标准。对于研究的偏倚风险和质量评估，在RCT的情况下，有六个分析领域，对于非RCT研究，使用修改的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表。利用现有的边缘骨质流失(MBL)和存活率数据进行meta分析。纳入了25项研究。牙钉固位器的种植体SR最低(87.6%)，MBL最大(1.96 mm)。对于棒夹系统，平均存活率为95.91%，该系统仅纳入4项研究，平均MBL为1.13 mm。只有3项研究直接对两种系统进行了定量比较，结果显示，留学生组的MBL明显更高。结果可能无法确定覆盖义齿的最佳系统(螺柱固位器或棒夹)。因此，大多数研究表明，由于更好的力分布，种植体周围的生物行为，成本低，易于清除，便于消毒和/或修复，螺钉保持器是更可取的系统。

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

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.