Suha Mohammed Aljudaibi, Mohammad Abdullah Zayed Alqhtani, Asmaa Saleh Almeslet, Omir Aldowah, Khalid Dhafer S Alhendi
{"title":"使用迷你种植体（直径小于 3 毫米）和标准直径种植体（直径大于 3 毫米）固位下颌全覆盖义齿：随机对照试验的系统回顾和元分析》。","authors":"Suha Mohammed Aljudaibi, Mohammad Abdullah Zayed Alqhtani, Asmaa Saleh Almeslet, Omir Aldowah, Khalid Dhafer S Alhendi","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.b5282167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The focused question was \"Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?\" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":"22 ","pages":"181-188"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619828/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retention of Mandibular Complete Overdentures using Mini Dental Implants (Ø < 3 mm) and Standard Diameter Implants (Ø > 3mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.\",\"authors\":\"Suha Mohammed Aljudaibi, Mohammad Abdullah Zayed Alqhtani, Asmaa Saleh Almeslet, Omir Aldowah, Khalid Dhafer S Alhendi\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.ohpd.b5282167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The focused question was \\\"Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?\\\" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"22 \",\"pages\":\"181-188\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11619828/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b5282167\",\"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":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b5282167","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}
Retention of Mandibular Complete Overdentures using Mini Dental Implants (Ø < 3 mm) and Standard Diameter Implants (Ø > 3mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Purpose: The objective of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which assessed the efficacy of mini dental implants (MDIs) and standard-diameter implants (SDIs) in retaining mandibular overdentures (MO).
Materials and methods: The focused question was "Is there a difference in the mechanical stability between MDIs and SDIs in retaining MO?" Indexed databases were searched up to and including November 2023 using different keywords. Boolean operators were used during the search. The literature was searched in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The PICO characteristics were: patients (P) = individuals with complete mandibular dentures requiring dental implants; Intervention (I) = placement of MDIs under mandibular dentures; Control (C) = placement of SDIs under mandibular dentures; Outcome (O) = comparison of stability between MDIs and SDIs in supporting mandibular dentures. Only RCTs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB tool.
Results: Five RCTs were included. The numbers of participants ranged between 45 and 120 edentulous individuals wearing complete mandibular dentures. The mean age of patients ranged between 59.5 ± 8.5 and 68.3 ± 8.5 years. The number of MDIs and SDIs ranged between 22 and 152 and 10 and 80 implants, respectively. The follow-up duration ranged between one week and 12 months. Three RCTs reported an improvement in the quality of life (QoL) of all patients after stabilisation of mandibular dentures using MDIs or SDIs. In one RCT, peri-implant soft tissue profiles were comparable between MDIs and SDIs at the 1-year follow-up. The implant survival rate was reported in two RCTs, which were from 89% to 98% and 99% to 100% for MDIs and SDIs, respectively. All RCTs had a low RoB.
Conclusion: Mini dental implants represent a viable alternative to traditional standard-diameter implants when seeking optimal retention for mandibular overdentures.
期刊介绍：
Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
