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