生物材料在引导骨再生下进行侧骨增强的疗效。网络荟萃分析。

IF 17.5 1区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Periodontology 2000 Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-27 DOI:10.1111/prd.12531
Elena Calciolari, Stefano Corbella, Nikolaos Gkranias, Marco Viganó, Anton Sculean, Nikolaos Donos
{"title":"生物材料在引导骨再生下进行侧骨增强的疗效。网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Elena Calciolari, Stefano Corbella, Nikolaos Gkranias, Marco Viganó, Anton Sculean, Nikolaos Donos","doi":"10.1111/prd.12531","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bone regeneration is often required concomitant with implant placement to treat a bone fenestration, a dehiscence, and for contouring. This systematic review assessed the impact of different biomaterials employed for guided bone regeneration (GBR) simultaneous to implant placement on the stability of radiographic peri-implant bone levels at ≥12 months of follow-up (focused question 1), as well as on bone defect dimension (width/height) changes at re-assessment after ≥4 months (focused question 2). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared different biomaterials for GBR were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using a random-effects model. A ranking probability between treatments was obtained, as well as an estimation of the surface under the cumulative ranking value (SUCRA). Overall, whenever the biological principle of GBR was followed, regeneration occurred in a predictable way, irrespective of the type of biomaterial used. A lower efficacy of GBR treatments was suggested for initially large defects, despite the trend did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of the biomaterial employed, a certain resorption of the augmented bone was observed overtime. While GBR was shown to be a safe and predictable treatment, several complications (including exposure, infection, and soft tissue dehiscence) were reported, which tend to be higher when using cross-linked collagen membranes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19736,"journal":{"name":"Periodontology 2000","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":17.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Elena Calciolari, Stefano Corbella, Nikolaos Gkranias, Marco Viganó, Anton Sculean, Nikolaos Donos\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/prd.12531\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Bone regeneration is often required concomitant with implant placement to treat a bone fenestration, a dehiscence, and for contouring. This systematic review assessed the impact of different biomaterials employed for guided bone regeneration (GBR) simultaneous to implant placement on the stability of radiographic peri-implant bone levels at ≥12 months of follow-up (focused question 1), as well as on bone defect dimension (width/height) changes at re-assessment after ≥4 months (focused question 2). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared different biomaterials for GBR were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using a random-effects model. A ranking probability between treatments was obtained, as well as an estimation of the surface under the cumulative ranking value (SUCRA). Overall, whenever the biological principle of GBR was followed, regeneration occurred in a predictable way, irrespective of the type of biomaterial used. A lower efficacy of GBR treatments was suggested for initially large defects, despite the trend did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of the biomaterial employed, a certain resorption of the augmented bone was observed overtime. While GBR was shown to be a safe and predictable treatment, several complications (including exposure, infection, and soft tissue dehiscence) were reported, which tend to be higher when using cross-linked collagen membranes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Periodontology 2000\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":17.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Periodontology 2000\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12531\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Periodontology 2000","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12531","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

骨再生通常需要与植入物一起放置,以治疗骨开窗、开裂和轮廓。这项系统综述评估了在植入物放置的同时用于引导骨再生(GBR)的不同生物材料对≥12的放射学植入物周围骨水平稳定性的影响 随访数月(重点问题1),以及≥4年后重新评估时的骨缺损尺寸(宽度/高度)变化 月(重点问题2)。只考虑比较不同生物材料治疗GBR的随机对照试验(RCT)和对照临床试验(CCT)。使用随机效应模型进行贝叶斯网络荟萃分析(NMA)。获得了处理之间的排序概率,以及在累积排序值(SUCRA)下对表面的估计。总的来说,无论使用何种生物材料,只要遵循GBR的生物学原理,再生都会以可预测的方式发生。GBR治疗最初的大缺陷的疗效较低,尽管这一趋势没有达到统计学意义。无论使用何种生物材料,随着时间的推移,都会观察到增强骨的一定吸收。虽然GBR被证明是一种安全和可预测的治疗方法,但据报道有几种并发症(包括暴露、感染和软组织开裂),当使用交联胶原膜时,这些并发症往往更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of biomaterials for lateral bone augmentation performed with guided bone regeneration. A network meta-analysis.

Bone regeneration is often required concomitant with implant placement to treat a bone fenestration, a dehiscence, and for contouring. This systematic review assessed the impact of different biomaterials employed for guided bone regeneration (GBR) simultaneous to implant placement on the stability of radiographic peri-implant bone levels at ≥12 months of follow-up (focused question 1), as well as on bone defect dimension (width/height) changes at re-assessment after ≥4 months (focused question 2). Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared different biomaterials for GBR were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed using a random-effects model. A ranking probability between treatments was obtained, as well as an estimation of the surface under the cumulative ranking value (SUCRA). Overall, whenever the biological principle of GBR was followed, regeneration occurred in a predictable way, irrespective of the type of biomaterial used. A lower efficacy of GBR treatments was suggested for initially large defects, despite the trend did not reach statistical significance. Regardless of the biomaterial employed, a certain resorption of the augmented bone was observed overtime. While GBR was shown to be a safe and predictable treatment, several complications (including exposure, infection, and soft tissue dehiscence) were reported, which tend to be higher when using cross-linked collagen membranes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Periodontology 2000
Periodontology 2000 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
34.10
自引率
2.20%
发文量
62
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Periodontology 2000 is a series of monographs designed for periodontists and general practitioners interested in periodontics. The editorial board selects significant topics and distinguished scientists and clinicians for each monograph. Serving as a valuable supplement to existing periodontal journals, three monographs are published annually, contributing specialized insights to the field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信