Comparison of Success Rate and Radiological Bone Loss in Patients with Mini-Implant versus Conventional-Sized Implant Removable Prostheses: A Meta-Analysis

Khaled Abubaker, Yuzhou Li, Sheng Yang
{"title":"Comparison of Success Rate and Radiological Bone Loss in Patients with Mini-Implant versus Conventional-Sized Implant Removable Prostheses: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Khaled Abubaker, Yuzhou Li, Sheng Yang","doi":"10.4236/OJST.2021.112006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess whether mini-implants have added benefit in terms of implants success rate and average bone loss over conventional-sized implants after one year of follow-up. Methods: An electronic search of randomized clinical trials was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science for studies including complete or partial edentulous patients requiring two or four mini-implants or conventional/ standard-sized implants in the maxilla or mandible for implant-supported removable prostheses who completed 12 months of follow-up. Results: The search provided 194 unique articles which were screened for title and abstract. Screening generated 12 articles which went through full-text analysis using eligibility criteria, and 4 articles were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated a non-significant difference in the success rate between the two interventions (OR = 1.69 [0.74, 3.85; p = 0.21]). Bone loss estimates resulted in a significant bone reduction (Mean Difference = -0.74 [-0.95, -0.53; p - with two conventional-sized implants, the estimates were non-significant (Mean Difference = -0.24 [-0.69, 0.20; p = 0.29]). Conclusion: The current evidence does not provide solid evidence of the benefits of one intervention over the other. More studies with follow-up times of 10 and more years are needed as current studies have described the short-term outcomes.","PeriodicalId":56569,"journal":{"name":"口腔学期刊(英文)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"口腔学期刊(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/OJST.2021.112006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess whether mini-implants have added benefit in terms of implants success rate and average bone loss over conventional-sized implants after one year of follow-up. Methods: An electronic search of randomized clinical trials was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science for studies including complete or partial edentulous patients requiring two or four mini-implants or conventional/ standard-sized implants in the maxilla or mandible for implant-supported removable prostheses who completed 12 months of follow-up. Results: The search provided 194 unique articles which were screened for title and abstract. Screening generated 12 articles which went through full-text analysis using eligibility criteria, and 4 articles were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated a non-significant difference in the success rate between the two interventions (OR = 1.69 [0.74, 3.85; p = 0.21]). Bone loss estimates resulted in a significant bone reduction (Mean Difference = -0.74 [-0.95, -0.53; p - with two conventional-sized implants, the estimates were non-significant (Mean Difference = -0.24 [-0.69, 0.20; p = 0.29]). Conclusion: The current evidence does not provide solid evidence of the benefits of one intervention over the other. More studies with follow-up times of 10 and more years are needed as current studies have described the short-term outcomes.
微型种植体与常规种植体可移除假体患者的成功率和放射性骨丢失的比较:Meta分析
背景:本荟萃分析的目的是评估一年随访后,与传统尺寸的植入物相比,小型植入物在植入成功率和平均骨丢失方面是否增加了益处。方法:在MEDLINE(通过PubMed)上进行随机临床试验的电子检索,Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials(Central)和Web of Science的研究,包括需要在上颌骨或下颌骨植入两个或四个迷你植入物或传统/标准尺寸植入物以用于植入物支持的可移除假体的完全或部分无牙患者,这些患者完成了12个月的随访。结果:搜索提供了194篇独特的文章,对其标题和摘要进行了筛选。筛选产生了12篇文章,这些文章使用资格标准进行了全文分析,4篇文章被纳入荟萃分析。这些研究的荟萃分析表明,两种干预措施的成功率无显著差异(OR=1.69[0.74,3.85;p=0.21])。骨丢失估计值导致了显著的骨减少(平均差异=0.74[-0.95,-0.53;p-对于两种常规尺寸的植入物,估计值无显著性(平均差异=-0.24[-0.69,0.20;p=0.29])。结论:目前的证据并不能提供一种干预措施相对于另一种干预的好处的确凿证据。由于目前的研究已经描述了短期结果,因此需要更多随访时间为10年或更长时间的研究。
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
450
×
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