Miguel Fernando Borda, Salomón Páez-García, Luisa Fernanda Murcia, Luis Carlos Venegas-Sanabria, Miguel Germán Borda
{"title":"根管治疗的牙齿与种植体支持的牙体的比较结果:一项系统综述。","authors":"Miguel Fernando Borda, Salomón Páez-García, Luisa Fernanda Murcia, Luis Carlos Venegas-Sanabria, Miguel Germán Borda","doi":"10.2340/aos.v84.43871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and patient-related outcomes of root canal therapy (RCT) and dental implants (DIs) in managing severe tooth damage, supporting evidence-based treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adult patients treated with either RCT or DIs were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias. Due to significant heterogeneity among studies, meta-analysis was not feasible, and findings were synthesised qualitatively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024584113.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,876 initial records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria: 7 cohort studies, 4 case-control studies, and 1 randomised controlled trial. Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Both RCT and DIs demonstrated high survival rates, with RCT slightly outperforming DIs in terms of success. Failure rates ranged from 0.7% to 12.0%, with no significant differences between treatments. DIs were associated with a higher frequency of postoperative interventions and complications. Patient-reported outcomes such as pain, satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL) were comparable across both modalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCT and DIs both offer viable and effective solutions for restoring severely damaged teeth, with high survival and success rates and low failure rates. Both treatments were also associated with favourable patient-reported outcomes, including minimal pain, high satisfaction, and improved QoL. The decision between treatments should consider clinical factors, patient preferences, cost, accessibility, potential complications, and patient-centred outcomes. Shared decision-making is essential for optimal patient care.</p>","PeriodicalId":7313,"journal":{"name":"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica","volume":"84 ","pages":"386-396"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12239130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative outcomes of endodontically treated teeth versus dental implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Fernando Borda, Salomón Páez-García, Luisa Fernanda Murcia, Luis Carlos Venegas-Sanabria, Miguel Germán Borda\",\"doi\":\"10.2340/aos.v84.43871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and patient-related outcomes of root canal therapy (RCT) and dental implants (DIs) in managing severe tooth damage, supporting evidence-based treatment decisions.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adult patients treated with either RCT or DIs were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias. Due to significant heterogeneity among studies, meta-analysis was not feasible, and findings were synthesised qualitatively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024584113.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 1,876 initial records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria: 7 cohort studies, 4 case-control studies, and 1 randomised controlled trial. Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Both RCT and DIs demonstrated high survival rates, with RCT slightly outperforming DIs in terms of success. Failure rates ranged from 0.7% to 12.0%, with no significant differences between treatments. DIs were associated with a higher frequency of postoperative interventions and complications. Patient-reported outcomes such as pain, satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL) were comparable across both modalities.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>RCT and DIs both offer viable and effective solutions for restoring severely damaged teeth, with high survival and success rates and low failure rates. Both treatments were also associated with favourable patient-reported outcomes, including minimal pain, high satisfaction, and improved QoL. The decision between treatments should consider clinical factors, patient preferences, cost, accessibility, potential complications, and patient-centred outcomes. Shared decision-making is essential for optimal patient care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"84 \",\"pages\":\"386-396\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12239130/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Odontologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v84.43871\",\"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.v84.43871","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:本研究的目的是比较根管治疗(RCT)和种植牙(DIs)在治疗严重牙齿损伤方面的临床和患者相关结果,支持循证治疗决策。材料和方法:根据PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)指南进行系统评价。检索了六个数据库:Cochrane Library、Embase、Medline、LILACS、Scopus和Web of Science。比较临床和患者报告结果的研究纳入了接受RCT或DIs治疗的成年患者。乔安娜布里格斯研究所批判性评估清单被用来评估偏见的风险。由于研究之间存在显著的异质性,meta分析不可行,研究结果是定性综合的。普洛斯彼罗注册:CRD42024584113。结果:在1876项初始记录中,12项研究符合纳入标准:7项队列研究、4项病例对照研究和1项随机对照试验。大多数研究有低到中等偏倚风险。RCT和DIs均显示出较高的生存率,其中RCT在成功率方面略优于DIs。治疗失败率从0.7%到12.0%不等,治疗间无显著差异。DIs与术后干预和并发症的频率较高相关。患者报告的结果,如疼痛、满意度和生活质量(QoL)在两种治疗方式中具有可比性。结论:RCT和DIs均为重度牙体损伤修复提供了可行有效的方法,成活率高,成功率高,失败率低。两种治疗方法也与患者报告的良好结果相关,包括最小的疼痛,高满意度和改善的生活质量。治疗之间的决定应考虑临床因素、患者偏好、成本、可及性、潜在并发症和以患者为中心的结果。共同决策对于最佳患者护理至关重要。
Comparative outcomes of endodontically treated teeth versus dental implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review.
Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the clinical and patient-related outcomes of root canal therapy (RCT) and dental implants (DIs) in managing severe tooth damage, supporting evidence-based treatment decisions.
Material and methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, LILACS, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies comparing clinical and patient-reported outcomes in adult patients treated with either RCT or DIs were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were used to assess the risk of bias. Due to significant heterogeneity among studies, meta-analysis was not feasible, and findings were synthesised qualitatively. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024584113.
Results: Out of 1,876 initial records, 12 studies met inclusion criteria: 7 cohort studies, 4 case-control studies, and 1 randomised controlled trial. Most studies had low to moderate risk of bias. Both RCT and DIs demonstrated high survival rates, with RCT slightly outperforming DIs in terms of success. Failure rates ranged from 0.7% to 12.0%, with no significant differences between treatments. DIs were associated with a higher frequency of postoperative interventions and complications. Patient-reported outcomes such as pain, satisfaction, and quality of life (QoL) were comparable across both modalities.
Conclusion: RCT and DIs both offer viable and effective solutions for restoring severely damaged teeth, with high survival and success rates and low failure rates. Both treatments were also associated with favourable patient-reported outcomes, including minimal pain, high satisfaction, and improved QoL. The decision between treatments should consider clinical factors, patient preferences, cost, accessibility, potential complications, and patient-centred outcomes. Shared decision-making is essential for optimal patient care.