Amit M Gaikwad, Amruta A Joshi, Olavo B de Oliveira-Neto, Ashvini M Padhye, Jyoti B Nadgere, Sabita M Ram, Seema R Yadav
{"title":"部分无牙弓和完全无牙弓种植体支持修复不同印模技术的系统综述和meta分析综述。","authors":"Amit M Gaikwad, Amruta A Joshi, Olavo B de Oliveira-Neto, Ashvini M Padhye, Jyoti B Nadgere, Sabita M Ram, Seema R Yadav","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To summarize the evidence and determine the most effective impression technique for implant-supported prostheses in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially and completely edentulous arches.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The searches were performed independently up to April 30, 2021 by two review authors through the Cochrane Oral Health Review, MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, and Science Direct databases. Moreover, manual and gray literature searches were performed to identify further potential reviews. Only English language-based systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses evaluating the different dental implant impression techniques were included. The outcomes assessed were accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference. The methodologic quality of the included reviews was investigated by using the R-AMSTAR tool, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was assessed by calculating the percentage of corrected covered area (CCA) as proposed by Pieper et al.<sup>64</sup> Results: The qualitative analysis included a total of 28 reviews, 8 of which included meta-analyses, published between 2008 and 2021, involving a total of 42 clinical trials and 203 laboratory studies. Digital vs conventional implant impression techniques were compared in 17 reviews, different digital impressions in 3 reviews, and different conventional impression techniques in the remaining reviews. Overall, the methodologic quality assessed by using the R-AMSTAR tool was moderate (mean: 26.7 ± 5.5) with slight overlap of primary studies (CCA; 5.23%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within an overall moderate methodologic quality, the digital implant impressions showed favorable outcomes in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially edentulous arches involving three or fewer implants. However, the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions involving multiple implants is not satisfactory and needs significant improvements. Hence, future studies following stringent guidelines and robust methodology are recommended to substantiate the findings of this overview and provide a high level of evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Evaluating Different Impression Techniques for Implant-Supported Prostheses in Partially and Completely Edentulous Arches.\",\"authors\":\"Amit M Gaikwad, Amruta A Joshi, Olavo B de Oliveira-Neto, Ashvini M Padhye, Jyoti B Nadgere, Sabita M Ram, Seema R Yadav\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.9635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To summarize the evidence and determine the most effective impression technique for implant-supported prostheses in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially and completely edentulous arches.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The searches were performed independently up to April 30, 2021 by two review authors through the Cochrane Oral Health Review, MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, and Science Direct databases. Moreover, manual and gray literature searches were performed to identify further potential reviews. Only English language-based systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses evaluating the different dental implant impression techniques were included. The outcomes assessed were accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference. The methodologic quality of the included reviews was investigated by using the R-AMSTAR tool, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was assessed by calculating the percentage of corrected covered area (CCA) as proposed by Pieper et al.<sup>64</sup> Results: The qualitative analysis included a total of 28 reviews, 8 of which included meta-analyses, published between 2008 and 2021, involving a total of 42 clinical trials and 203 laboratory studies. Digital vs conventional implant impression techniques were compared in 17 reviews, different digital impressions in 3 reviews, and different conventional impression techniques in the remaining reviews. Overall, the methodologic quality assessed by using the R-AMSTAR tool was moderate (mean: 26.7 ± 5.5) with slight overlap of primary studies (CCA; 5.23%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within an overall moderate methodologic quality, the digital implant impressions showed favorable outcomes in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially edentulous arches involving three or fewer implants. However, the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions involving multiple implants is not satisfactory and needs significant improvements. Hence, future studies following stringent guidelines and robust methodology are recommended to substantiate the findings of this overview and provide a high level of evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9635\",\"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":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9635","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}
An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Evaluating Different Impression Techniques for Implant-Supported Prostheses in Partially and Completely Edentulous Arches.
Purpose: To summarize the evidence and determine the most effective impression technique for implant-supported prostheses in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially and completely edentulous arches.
Materials and methods: The searches were performed independently up to April 30, 2021 by two review authors through the Cochrane Oral Health Review, MEDLINE/PubMed, LILACS, and Science Direct databases. Moreover, manual and gray literature searches were performed to identify further potential reviews. Only English language-based systematic reviews with and without meta-analyses evaluating the different dental implant impression techniques were included. The outcomes assessed were accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference. The methodologic quality of the included reviews was investigated by using the R-AMSTAR tool, and the degree of overlap of primary studies was assessed by calculating the percentage of corrected covered area (CCA) as proposed by Pieper et al.64 Results: The qualitative analysis included a total of 28 reviews, 8 of which included meta-analyses, published between 2008 and 2021, involving a total of 42 clinical trials and 203 laboratory studies. Digital vs conventional implant impression techniques were compared in 17 reviews, different digital impressions in 3 reviews, and different conventional impression techniques in the remaining reviews. Overall, the methodologic quality assessed by using the R-AMSTAR tool was moderate (mean: 26.7 ± 5.5) with slight overlap of primary studies (CCA; 5.23%).
Conclusion: Within an overall moderate methodologic quality, the digital implant impressions showed favorable outcomes in terms of accuracy, time efficiency, and patient preference in partially edentulous arches involving three or fewer implants. However, the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions involving multiple implants is not satisfactory and needs significant improvements. Hence, future studies following stringent guidelines and robust methodology are recommended to substantiate the findings of this overview and provide a high level of evidence.
期刊介绍:
Edited by Steven E. Eckert, DDS, MS ISSN (Print): 0882-2786
ISSN (Online): 1942-4434
This highly regarded, often-cited journal integrates clinical and scientific data to improve methods and results of oral and maxillofacial implant therapy. It presents pioneering research, technology, clinical applications, reviews of the literature, seminal studies, emerging technology, position papers, and consensus studies, as well as the many clinical and therapeutic innovations that ensue as a result of these efforts. The editorial board is composed of recognized opinion leaders in their respective areas of expertise and reflects the international reach of the journal. Under their leadership, JOMI maintains its strong scientific integrity while expanding its influence within the field of implant dentistry. JOMI’s popular regular feature "Thematic Abstract Review" presents a review of abstracts of recently published articles on a specific topical area of interest each issue.