{"title":"两颗传统种植体与四颗微型牙种植体固定下颌覆盖义齿:临床和放射学结果的系统回顾。","authors":"Yasser A Araby, Shaul K Hameed","doi":"10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is essential to compare conventional dental implants (CDIs) and mini dental implants (MDIs). This systematic review evaluates the clinical and radiological outcomes of individuals receiving MDI-retained overdentures (ODs) compared with CDI-retained ODs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for the current systematic review. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were examined for evidence-based research articles addressing the clinical and radiological outcomes of MDI and CDI published from January 2013 to September 2024. Two independent specialists conducted an autonomous search and established predefined screening criteria. The risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated using the criteria established by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for scientific merit. The informational database and manual searches produced 242 papers. Eight RCTs were examined after eliminating duplicates and organizing the publications according to the qualifying criteria. MDI-retained ODs have been shown to provide numerous benefits, including reduced bone resorption; enhanced esthetics, occlusion, and tooth location; improved occlusal load direction; and maintenance of occlusal vertical dimension. The current systematic review suggests that using MDIs to retain overdenture prostheses could be a viable alternative treatment option due to the high survival rates, acceptable marginal bone loss, and improvements in patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":519890,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of oral implantology","volume":" ","pages":"218-226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Two Conventional Implants vs Four Mini Dental Implants to Retain Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Yasser A Araby, Shaul K Hameed\",\"doi\":\"10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>It is essential to compare conventional dental implants (CDIs) and mini dental implants (MDIs). This systematic review evaluates the clinical and radiological outcomes of individuals receiving MDI-retained overdentures (ODs) compared with CDI-retained ODs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for the current systematic review. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were examined for evidence-based research articles addressing the clinical and radiological outcomes of MDI and CDI published from January 2013 to September 2024. Two independent specialists conducted an autonomous search and established predefined screening criteria. The risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated using the criteria established by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for scientific merit. The informational database and manual searches produced 242 papers. Eight RCTs were examined after eliminating duplicates and organizing the publications according to the qualifying criteria. MDI-retained ODs have been shown to provide numerous benefits, including reduced bone resorption; enhanced esthetics, occlusion, and tooth location; improved occlusal load direction; and maintenance of occlusal vertical dimension. The current systematic review suggests that using MDIs to retain overdenture prostheses could be a viable alternative treatment option due to the high survival rates, acceptable marginal bone loss, and improvements in patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life metrics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":519890,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of oral implantology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"218-226\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of oral implantology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of oral implantology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-24-00229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景与目的:比较传统种植体(cdi)和微型种植体(mdi)是必要的。本系统综述评估了接受mdi固位覆盖义齿(ODs)与cdi固位覆盖义齿个体的临床和放射学结果。材料和方法:本次系统评价遵循系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南。我们检索了PubMed、Scopus和Cochrane数据库,检索了2013年1月至2024年9月期间发表的关于MDI和CDI临床和放射学结果的循证研究文章。两名独立专家进行了自主搜索,并建立了预先确定的筛选标准。随机对照试验(rct)的偏倚风险(RoB)是根据《Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册》(Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions)的科学价值标准评估的。结果:信息数据库和人工检索共收录论文242篇。在消除重复并根据合格标准整理出版物后,对8项随机对照试验进行检查。mdi保留的ODs已被证明具有许多好处,包括减少骨吸收,增强美观,咬合和牙齿定位,改善咬合负荷方向和维持咬合垂直尺寸。结论:目前的系统综述表明,由于高存活率、可接受的边缘骨质流失以及患者满意度和口腔健康相关生活质量指标的改善,使用微型牙种植体保留覆盖义齿可能是一种可行的替代治疗选择。
Two Conventional Implants vs Four Mini Dental Implants to Retain Mandibular Overdentures: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Radiological Outcomes.
It is essential to compare conventional dental implants (CDIs) and mini dental implants (MDIs). This systematic review evaluates the clinical and radiological outcomes of individuals receiving MDI-retained overdentures (ODs) compared with CDI-retained ODs. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed for the current systematic review. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were examined for evidence-based research articles addressing the clinical and radiological outcomes of MDI and CDI published from January 2013 to September 2024. Two independent specialists conducted an autonomous search and established predefined screening criteria. The risk of bias for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was evaluated using the criteria established by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for scientific merit. The informational database and manual searches produced 242 papers. Eight RCTs were examined after eliminating duplicates and organizing the publications according to the qualifying criteria. MDI-retained ODs have been shown to provide numerous benefits, including reduced bone resorption; enhanced esthetics, occlusion, and tooth location; improved occlusal load direction; and maintenance of occlusal vertical dimension. The current systematic review suggests that using MDIs to retain overdenture prostheses could be a viable alternative treatment option due to the high survival rates, acceptable marginal bone loss, and improvements in patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life metrics.