牙周再生疗法中骨移植与骨移植结合引导组织再生的临床疗效比较:一项荟萃分析。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Fengqi Zhang, Guolin Liu
{"title":"牙周再生疗法中骨移植与骨移植结合引导组织再生的临床疗效比较:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Fengqi Zhang, Guolin Liu","doi":"10.2340/aos.v83.40255","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\nThis study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in periodontal regenerative therapy.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe authors systematically searched PubMed, the Web of Science, The National Library of Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database and the Wanfang database and collected randomized controlled trials relating to bone graft co-guided tissue regeneration. The retrieval was conducted between January 1990 and December 2022. This study included relevant literature about the clinical efficacy of bone grafting combined with GTR according to the population, intervention, control and outcomes principle and excluded studies using other materials in addition to bone graft and membrane materials. After independently screening the literature, extracting the data and evaluating the risk of bias in the included studies, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.  Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and, after further evaluation, a total of 327 teeth that were featured in 15 articles were finally included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant statistical difference in clinical attachment level, probing depth and bone gain between the test group (bone grafting with GTR) and the control group (bone grafting only) at 6 months after the operation (p > 0.05). In terms of gingival recession (GR), the use of non-resorbable membranes produced more recession in the test group compared with the control group (p < 0.05), whereas the use of resorbable membranes produced less recession (p < 0.05).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nBoth simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with membrane materials have good clinical efficacy in periodontal regenerative therapy, and no significant difference in clinical efficacy is indicated between the two, with the exception of GR.","PeriodicalId":7313,"journal":{"name":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the clinical efficacy of bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration in periodontal regenerative therapy: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Fengqi Zhang, Guolin Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/aos.v83.40255\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"OBJECTIVE\\nThis study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in periodontal regenerative therapy.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nThe authors systematically searched PubMed, the Web of Science, The National Library of Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database and the Wanfang database and collected randomized controlled trials relating to bone graft co-guided tissue regeneration. The retrieval was conducted between January 1990 and December 2022. This study included relevant literature about the clinical efficacy of bone grafting combined with GTR according to the population, intervention, control and outcomes principle and excluded studies using other materials in addition to bone graft and membrane materials. After independently screening the literature, extracting the data and evaluating the risk of bias in the included studies, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.  Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and, after further evaluation, a total of 327 teeth that were featured in 15 articles were finally included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant statistical difference in clinical attachment level, probing depth and bone gain between the test group (bone grafting with GTR) and the control group (bone grafting only) at 6 months after the operation (p > 0.05). In terms of gingival recession (GR), the use of non-resorbable membranes produced more recession in the test group compared with the control group (p < 0.05), whereas the use of resorbable membranes produced less recession (p < 0.05).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nBoth simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with membrane materials have good clinical efficacy in periodontal regenerative therapy, and no significant difference in clinical efficacy is indicated between the two, with the exception of GR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v83.40255\",\"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":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v83.40255","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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的本研究旨在比较单纯植骨与植骨联合引导组织再生(GTR)在牙周再生治疗中的临床疗效。方法作者系统检索了PubMed、Web of Science、美国国家医学图书馆、中国国家知识基础设施数据库和万方数据库,收集了与植骨联合引导组织再生相关的随机对照试验。检索时间为 1990 年 1 月至 2022 年 12 月。本研究按照人群、干预、对照和结果原则,收录了植骨联合GTR临床疗效的相关文献,排除了除植骨和膜材料外使用其他材料的研究。在独立筛选文献、提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险后,使用 RevMan 5.3 软件进行数据分析。 结果:有 18 项研究符合纳入标准,经过进一步评估,最终纳入了 15 篇文章中的共 327 颗牙齿进行荟萃分析。荟萃分析结果显示,术后 6 个月时,试验组(植骨加 GTR)与对照组(仅植骨)在临床附着水平、探查深度和骨增量方面没有明显的统计学差异(P > 0.05)。在牙龈退缩(GR)方面,与对照组相比,试验组使用非吸收膜产生的牙龈退缩较多(P < 0.05),而使用可吸收膜产生的牙龈退缩较少(P < 0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration in periodontal regenerative therapy: a meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy of simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with guided tissue regeneration (GTR) in periodontal regenerative therapy. METHODS The authors systematically searched PubMed, the Web of Science, The National Library of Medicine, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database and the Wanfang database and collected randomized controlled trials relating to bone graft co-guided tissue regeneration. The retrieval was conducted between January 1990 and December 2022. This study included relevant literature about the clinical efficacy of bone grafting combined with GTR according to the population, intervention, control and outcomes principle and excluded studies using other materials in addition to bone graft and membrane materials. After independently screening the literature, extracting the data and evaluating the risk of bias in the included studies, data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.  Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria, and, after further evaluation, a total of 327 teeth that were featured in 15 articles were finally included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that there was no significant statistical difference in clinical attachment level, probing depth and bone gain between the test group (bone grafting with GTR) and the control group (bone grafting only) at 6 months after the operation (p > 0.05). In terms of gingival recession (GR), the use of non-resorbable membranes produced more recession in the test group compared with the control group (p < 0.05), whereas the use of resorbable membranes produced less recession (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION Both simple bone grafting and bone grafting combined with membrane materials have good clinical efficacy in periodontal regenerative therapy, and no significant difference in clinical efficacy is indicated between the two, with the exception of GR.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Odontologica Scandinavica publishes papers conveying new knowledge within all areas of oral health and disease sciences.
×
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