Aleksandra Milić Lemić, Stefan Vulović, Aleksandar Jakovljević, Jelena Jaćimović, Frauke Müller, Sabrina Maniewicz, Marija S. Milić, Aleksandra Popovac
{"title":"单种植体和双种植体下颌覆盖义齿的临床和患者报告结果分析-综述。","authors":"Aleksandra Milić Lemić, Stefan Vulović, Aleksandar Jakovljević, Jelena Jaćimović, Frauke Müller, Sabrina Maniewicz, Marija S. Milić, Aleksandra Popovac","doi":"10.1111/joor.13962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>A two-implant mandibular overdenture (TIMO) is considered a viable approach for the rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible, enhancing retention, stability, overall function and patient-reported outcome. Recently, the minimalist strategy of single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) was proposed as an alternative treatment for mandibular edentulism.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>To analyse systematic reviews (SRs) and provide a comprehensive overview of clinical and patient-reported outcomes, including implant failure, peri-implant marginal bone loss, overall prosthetic complications and maintenance, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life, in SIMO compared with TIMO.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The umbrella review was designed and reported following the PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024599304). Included SRs evaluated the clinical and/or patient-reported outcomes in edentulous patients rehabilitated with SIMO and TIMO. A literature search was conducted without restrictions on the language in Web of Science, ProQuest, SCIELO, KCI, Grants Index, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Critical evaluation of the included SRs was conducted using AMSTAR 2.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Out of 243 papers suitable for title/abstract screening, 7 SRs were selected. One SR favoured SIMO over TIMO for both implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss, whereas in another SR it was shown that TIMO revealed significantly more implant failures after 1 and 5 years, significantly more prosthetic failures after 1 year, and significantly more O-ring replacements after 5 years, compared to SIMO. Regarding the quality assessment of included SRs, two were categorised as ‘critically low’, two as ‘low’ and three as ‘moderate’.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>SIMO corresponds with the conventional TIMO as a potentially effective treatment for the rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Additional studies are warranted to obtain more robust patient evidence and refine clinical guidelines.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16605,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral rehabilitation","volume":"52 5","pages":"733-747"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analysis of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Single- and Two-Implant Mandibular Overdenture—An Umbrella Review\",\"authors\":\"Aleksandra Milić Lemić, Stefan Vulović, Aleksandar Jakovljević, Jelena Jaćimović, Frauke Müller, Sabrina Maniewicz, Marija S. Milić, Aleksandra Popovac\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/joor.13962\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>A two-implant mandibular overdenture (TIMO) is considered a viable approach for the rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible, enhancing retention, stability, overall function and patient-reported outcome. Recently, the minimalist strategy of single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) was proposed as an alternative treatment for mandibular edentulism.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>To analyse systematic reviews (SRs) and provide a comprehensive overview of clinical and patient-reported outcomes, including implant failure, peri-implant marginal bone loss, overall prosthetic complications and maintenance, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life, in SIMO compared with TIMO.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>The umbrella review was designed and reported following the PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024599304). Included SRs evaluated the clinical and/or patient-reported outcomes in edentulous patients rehabilitated with SIMO and TIMO. A literature search was conducted without restrictions on the language in Web of Science, ProQuest, SCIELO, KCI, Grants Index, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Critical evaluation of the included SRs was conducted using AMSTAR 2.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Out of 243 papers suitable for title/abstract screening, 7 SRs were selected. One SR favoured SIMO over TIMO for both implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss, whereas in another SR it was shown that TIMO revealed significantly more implant failures after 1 and 5 years, significantly more prosthetic failures after 1 year, and significantly more O-ring replacements after 5 years, compared to SIMO. Regarding the quality assessment of included SRs, two were categorised as ‘critically low’, two as ‘low’ and three as ‘moderate’.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>SIMO corresponds with the conventional TIMO as a potentially effective treatment for the rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Additional studies are warranted to obtain more robust patient evidence and refine clinical guidelines.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16605,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of oral rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\"52 5\",\"pages\":\"733-747\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of oral rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joor.13962\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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 oral rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joor.13962","RegionNum":3,"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
背景：双种植体下颌覆盖义齿（TIMO）被认为是修复无牙下颌骨的一种可行方法，可以提高固位、稳定性、整体功能和患者报告的结果。近年来，单种植下颌覆盖义齿（SIMO）的极简策略被提出作为下颌全牙症的替代治疗方法。目的：分析系统评价（SRs），并提供临床和患者报告结果的全面概述，包括种植体失败、种植体周围边缘骨丢失、整体假体并发症和维护、患者满意度和口腔健康相关生活质量，与TIMO相比。方法：按照PRISMA指南设计和报告总结性评价，并在PROSPERO数据库中注册（CRD42024599304）。纳入的SRs评估了使用SIMO和TIMO康复的无牙患者的临床和/或患者报告的结果。在Web of Science、ProQuest、SCIELO、KCI、Grants Index、Scopus、PubMed/MEDLINE和Cochrane Library数据库中进行无语言限制的文献检索。使用AMSTAR 2对纳入的SRs进行了关键评估。结果：243篇适合标题/摘要筛选的论文中，筛选出7篇SRs。一项研究表明，与SIMO相比，SIMO在种植体失败和种植体周围边缘骨丢失方面更倾向于SIMO，而另一项研究表明，与SIMO相比，TIMO在1年和5年后出现了更多的种植体失败，1年后出现了更多的假体失败，5年后出现了更多的o型环替换。关于所纳入的社会责任的质量评估，有两个被分类为“极低”，两个被分类为“低”，三个被分类为“中等”。结论：SIMO与传统的TIMO相一致，是一种潜在的有效治疗无牙下颌骨的康复方法。有必要进行更多的研究，以获得更有力的患者证据和完善临床指南。
Analysis of Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Single- and Two-Implant Mandibular Overdenture—An Umbrella Review
Background
A two-implant mandibular overdenture (TIMO) is considered a viable approach for the rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible, enhancing retention, stability, overall function and patient-reported outcome. Recently, the minimalist strategy of single-implant mandibular overdenture (SIMO) was proposed as an alternative treatment for mandibular edentulism.
Objectives
To analyse systematic reviews (SRs) and provide a comprehensive overview of clinical and patient-reported outcomes, including implant failure, peri-implant marginal bone loss, overall prosthetic complications and maintenance, patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life, in SIMO compared with TIMO.
Methods
The umbrella review was designed and reported following the PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42024599304). Included SRs evaluated the clinical and/or patient-reported outcomes in edentulous patients rehabilitated with SIMO and TIMO. A literature search was conducted without restrictions on the language in Web of Science, ProQuest, SCIELO, KCI, Grants Index, Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. Critical evaluation of the included SRs was conducted using AMSTAR 2.
Results
Out of 243 papers suitable for title/abstract screening, 7 SRs were selected. One SR favoured SIMO over TIMO for both implant failure and peri-implant marginal bone loss, whereas in another SR it was shown that TIMO revealed significantly more implant failures after 1 and 5 years, significantly more prosthetic failures after 1 year, and significantly more O-ring replacements after 5 years, compared to SIMO. Regarding the quality assessment of included SRs, two were categorised as ‘critically low’, two as ‘low’ and three as ‘moderate’.
Conclusions
SIMO corresponds with the conventional TIMO as a potentially effective treatment for the rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Additional studies are warranted to obtain more robust patient evidence and refine clinical guidelines.
期刊介绍：
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation aims to be the most prestigious journal of dental research within all aspects of oral rehabilitation and applied oral physiology. It covers all diagnostic and clinical management aspects necessary to re-establish a subjective and objective harmonious oral function.
Oral rehabilitation may become necessary as a result of developmental or acquired disturbances in the orofacial region, orofacial traumas, or a variety of dental and oral diseases (primarily dental caries and periodontal diseases) and orofacial pain conditions. As such, oral rehabilitation in the twenty-first century is a matter of skilful diagnosis and minimal, appropriate intervention, the nature of which is intimately linked to a profound knowledge of oral physiology, oral biology, and dental and oral pathology.
The scientific content of the journal therefore strives to reflect the best of evidence-based clinical dentistry. Modern clinical management should be based on solid scientific evidence gathered about diagnostic procedures and the properties and efficacy of the chosen intervention (e.g. material science, biological, toxicological, pharmacological or psychological aspects). The content of the journal also reflects documentation of the possible side-effects of rehabilitation, and includes prognostic perspectives of the treatment modalities chosen.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
