{"title":"斜螺纹通道与直螺纹通道种植义齿的机械和生物并发症：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Sieu Yien Chiam, Han-Pang Liu, Won-Suk Oh","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Scientific evidence to determine the clinical performance of angled screw channel (ASC) versus straight screw channel (SC) implant-supported prostheses is lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the mechanical and biological complications of ASC compared with those of SC implant-supported prostheses.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases and was supplemented with a manual search for clinical studies reporting the mechanical and biological complications of ASC compared with those of SC implant-supported prostheses. The search was focused on porcelain fracture, screw loosening or fracture, marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic score (PES). The data were extracted from selected articles and compounded to estimate the complications with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effects meta-analysis. The publication bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4217 records were identified, and 14 studies were selected for quantitative synthesis of 629 participants with 658 ASC and 166 SC implant-supported prostheses. The meta-analyses of comparative studies showed no statistically significant difference in mechanical complications between ASC and SC prostheses, with odds ratio (OR) of 1.75 (95% CI=0.71-4.34, P=.224). Porcelain fracture and screw loosening were the most common complications with ASC prostheses. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found between ASC and SC prostheses in the MBL (mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI=-0.15-0.01, P=.077) and PES (mean difference=-0.19, 95% CI=-0.90-0.52, P=.593).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical performance of ASC may be comparable with that of SC implant-supported prostheses in terms of mechanical and biological complications. However, the moderate level of evidence necessitates further research to validate these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mechanical and biological complications of angled versus straight screw channel implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Sieu Yien Chiam, Han-Pang Liu, Won-Suk Oh\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Scientific evidence to determine the clinical performance of angled screw channel (ASC) versus straight screw channel (SC) implant-supported prostheses is lacking.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the mechanical and biological complications of ASC compared with those of SC implant-supported prostheses.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases and was supplemented with a manual search for clinical studies reporting the mechanical and biological complications of ASC compared with those of SC implant-supported prostheses. The search was focused on porcelain fracture, screw loosening or fracture, marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic score (PES). The data were extracted from selected articles and compounded to estimate the complications with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effects meta-analysis. The publication bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4217 records were identified, and 14 studies were selected for quantitative synthesis of 629 participants with 658 ASC and 166 SC implant-supported prostheses. The meta-analyses of comparative studies showed no statistically significant difference in mechanical complications between ASC and SC prostheses, with odds ratio (OR) of 1.75 (95% CI=0.71-4.34, P=.224). Porcelain fracture and screw loosening were the most common complications with ASC prostheses. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found between ASC and SC prostheses in the MBL (mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI=-0.15-0.01, P=.077) and PES (mean difference=-0.19, 95% CI=-0.90-0.52, P=.593).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical performance of ASC may be comparable with that of SC implant-supported prostheses in terms of mechanical and biological complications. However, the moderate level of evidence necessitates further research to validate these findings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16866,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.009\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.10.009","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
问题陈述：目前尚缺乏科学证据来确定斜螺纹通道（ASC）与直螺纹通道（SC）种植体支持修复体的临床表现。目的：本系统综述和荟萃分析调查了ASC与SC种植体支持修复体的机械和生物并发症：按照系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目（Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses，PRISMA）指南，在PubMed、Embase和Web of Science数据库中进行了系统检索，并辅以人工检索，以获得关于ASC与SC种植体支持的修复体相比的机械和生物并发症的临床研究报告。搜索的重点是烤瓷断裂、螺钉松动或断裂、边缘骨损失（MBL）和粉红修复评分（PES）。从所选文章中提取数据，并采用随机效应荟萃分析法对并发症进行估计，得出 95% 的置信区间 (CI)。采用科克伦偏倚风险和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表（α=.05）评估发表偏倚：共鉴定了 4217 条记录，并选择了 14 项研究对 629 名参与者的 658 个 ASC 和 166 个 SC 种植体支持假体进行定量综合分析。对比研究的荟萃分析表明，ASC和SC假体在机械并发症方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异，几率比（OR）为1.75（95% CI=0.71-4.34，P=0.224）。瓷断裂和螺钉松动是ASC假体最常见的并发症。此外，ASC和SC假体在MBL（平均差异=-0.07，95% CI=-0.15-0.01，P=.077）和PES（平均差异=-0.19，95% CI=-0.90-0.52，P=.593）方面没有统计学意义上的显著差异：就机械和生物并发症而言，ASC的临床表现可能与SC种植体支持的修复体相当。结论：就机械和生物并发症而言，ASC的临床表现可能与SC种植体支持的假体相当，但由于证据水平一般，有必要进一步研究以验证这些发现。
Mechanical and biological complications of angled versus straight screw channel implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Statement of problem: Scientific evidence to determine the clinical performance of angled screw channel (ASC) versus straight screw channel (SC) implant-supported prostheses is lacking.
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the mechanical and biological complications of ASC compared with those of SC implant-supported prostheses.
Material and methods: A systematic search was conducted by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline in the PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases and was supplemented with a manual search for clinical studies reporting the mechanical and biological complications of ASC compared with those of SC implant-supported prostheses. The search was focused on porcelain fracture, screw loosening or fracture, marginal bone loss (MBL), and pink esthetic score (PES). The data were extracted from selected articles and compounded to estimate the complications with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random effects meta-analysis. The publication bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (α=.05).
Results: A total of 4217 records were identified, and 14 studies were selected for quantitative synthesis of 629 participants with 658 ASC and 166 SC implant-supported prostheses. The meta-analyses of comparative studies showed no statistically significant difference in mechanical complications between ASC and SC prostheses, with odds ratio (OR) of 1.75 (95% CI=0.71-4.34, P=.224). Porcelain fracture and screw loosening were the most common complications with ASC prostheses. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found between ASC and SC prostheses in the MBL (mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI=-0.15-0.01, P=.077) and PES (mean difference=-0.19, 95% CI=-0.90-0.52, P=.593).
Conclusions: The clinical performance of ASC may be comparable with that of SC implant-supported prostheses in terms of mechanical and biological complications. However, the moderate level of evidence necessitates further research to validate these findings.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
