{"title":"11,646例采用手术引导和两种不同手术方式种植体的临床表现:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ilser Turkyilmaz, Merve Benli, Todd R Schoenbaum","doi":"10.11607/jomi.10494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To assess and quantify survival rates and marginal bone levels (MBLs) of implants placed using guided surgery with a flapless approach vs traditional flap elevation. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library and refereed by two independent reviewers. Data were synthesized for MBL and survival rates for \"flapless\" vs traditional \"flap\" implant placement approach groups. Meta-analyses and nonparametric tests for differences between groups were performed. Rates and types of complications were compiled. The study was conducted under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. <b>Results:</b> A total of 868 records were screened. Full-text review of 109 articles resulted in a total of 57 included studies (50 included for quantitative synthesis and analysis). The survival rate was 97.4% (95% CI: 96.7%, 98.1%) for the flapless approach vs 95.8% (95% CI: 93.3%, 98.2%) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was <i>P</i> = .2339. MBL for the flapless approach was 0.96 mm (95% CI: 0.754, 1.16) vs 0.49 mm (95% CI: 0.30, 0.68) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was <i>P</i> = .0495. <b>Conclusion:</b> The outcomes of this review have suggested that surgical guided implant placement can be used as a reliable method regardless of approach. Additionally, flap and flapless approaches provided similar implant survival rates, but the flap technique provided a slightly better MBL than the flapless approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 suppl","pages":"16-29"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Performance of 11,646 Dental Implants Using Surgical Guides and Two Different Surgical Approaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ilser Turkyilmaz, Merve Benli, Todd R Schoenbaum\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.10494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To assess and quantify survival rates and marginal bone levels (MBLs) of implants placed using guided surgery with a flapless approach vs traditional flap elevation. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library and refereed by two independent reviewers. Data were synthesized for MBL and survival rates for \\\"flapless\\\" vs traditional \\\"flap\\\" implant placement approach groups. Meta-analyses and nonparametric tests for differences between groups were performed. Rates and types of complications were compiled. The study was conducted under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. <b>Results:</b> A total of 868 records were screened. Full-text review of 109 articles resulted in a total of 57 included studies (50 included for quantitative synthesis and analysis). The survival rate was 97.4% (95% CI: 96.7%, 98.1%) for the flapless approach vs 95.8% (95% CI: 93.3%, 98.2%) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was <i>P</i> = .2339. MBL for the flapless approach was 0.96 mm (95% CI: 0.754, 1.16) vs 0.49 mm (95% CI: 0.30, 0.68) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was <i>P</i> = .0495. <b>Conclusion:</b> The outcomes of this review have suggested that surgical guided implant placement can be used as a reliable method regardless of approach. Additionally, flap and flapless approaches provided similar implant survival rates, but the flap technique provided a slightly better MBL than the flapless approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"38 suppl\",\"pages\":\"16-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10494\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10494","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical Performance of 11,646 Dental Implants Using Surgical Guides and Two Different Surgical Approaches: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Purpose: To assess and quantify survival rates and marginal bone levels (MBLs) of implants placed using guided surgery with a flapless approach vs traditional flap elevation. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed and the Cochrane Library and refereed by two independent reviewers. Data were synthesized for MBL and survival rates for "flapless" vs traditional "flap" implant placement approach groups. Meta-analyses and nonparametric tests for differences between groups were performed. Rates and types of complications were compiled. The study was conducted under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results: A total of 868 records were screened. Full-text review of 109 articles resulted in a total of 57 included studies (50 included for quantitative synthesis and analysis). The survival rate was 97.4% (95% CI: 96.7%, 98.1%) for the flapless approach vs 95.8% (95% CI: 93.3%, 98.2%) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was P = .2339. MBL for the flapless approach was 0.96 mm (95% CI: 0.754, 1.16) vs 0.49 mm (95% CI: 0.30, 0.68) for the flap approach; weighted Wilcoxon rank sum test for significance was P = .0495. Conclusion: The outcomes of this review have suggested that surgical guided implant placement can be used as a reliable method regardless of approach. Additionally, flap and flapless approaches provided similar implant survival rates, but the flap technique provided a slightly better MBL than the flapless approach.
期刊介绍:
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786
ISSN (Online): 1942-4434
This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.