超短(< 6mm)植骨体与标准长度植骨体相比的有效性:系统综述。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Polianne Alves Mendes, Vânia Eloisa de Araújo Silva, Danilo Viegas da Costa, Matheus Morais de Pinho, Leandro Chambrone, Elton Gonçalves Zenóbio
{"title":"超短(< 6mm)植骨体与标准长度植骨体相比的有效性:系统综述。","authors":"Polianne Alves Mendes,&nbsp;Vânia Eloisa de Araújo Silva,&nbsp;Danilo Viegas da Costa,&nbsp;Matheus Morais de Pinho,&nbsp;Leandro Chambrone,&nbsp;Elton Gonçalves Zenóbio","doi":"10.11607/jomi.9990","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate the effectiveness of extra-short implants compared to standard-length implants in graft regions at different longitudinal follow-up times. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A systematic review was performed, following PRISMA criteria. LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, including gray literature and manual searches, were conducted without language or date restrictions. Study selection, risk of bias (Rob 2.0), quality of evidence (GRADE), and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Data were combined using the random-effects model. <b>Results:</b> A total of 1,383 publications were identified, including 11 publications from 4 randomized clinical trials that evaluated 567 implants (276 extra-short and 291 regular implants with graft) in 186 patients. The meta-analysis showed that losses (risk ratio [RR]: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.89; <i>P</i> = .62; I<sup>2</sup>: 0%) and prosthetic complications (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.59; <i>P</i> = .83; I<sup>2</sup>: 0%) were similar in both groups. Biologic complications were significantly higher in regular implants with graft (RR: 0.48; CI: 0.29 to 0.77; <i>P</i> = .003; I<sup>2</sup>: 18%), which also had lower peri-implant bone stability in the mandible at the 12-month follow-up (mean deviation [MD]: -0.25; CI: -0.36 to 0.15; <i>P</i> < .00001; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Extra-short implants showed similar effictiveness compared to standard-length implants placed in grafted regions at different longitudinal follow-up times and present reduced biologic complications, shorter treatment times, and greater peri-implant bone crest stability.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 1","pages":"29-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of Extra-Short (< 6 mm) Implants Compared to Standard-Length Implants Associated with Bone Graft: Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Polianne Alves Mendes,&nbsp;Vânia Eloisa de Araújo Silva,&nbsp;Danilo Viegas da Costa,&nbsp;Matheus Morais de Pinho,&nbsp;Leandro Chambrone,&nbsp;Elton Gonçalves Zenóbio\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.9990\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate the effectiveness of extra-short implants compared to standard-length implants in graft regions at different longitudinal follow-up times. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> A systematic review was performed, following PRISMA criteria. LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, including gray literature and manual searches, were conducted without language or date restrictions. Study selection, risk of bias (Rob 2.0), quality of evidence (GRADE), and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Data were combined using the random-effects model. <b>Results:</b> A total of 1,383 publications were identified, including 11 publications from 4 randomized clinical trials that evaluated 567 implants (276 extra-short and 291 regular implants with graft) in 186 patients. The meta-analysis showed that losses (risk ratio [RR]: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.89; <i>P</i> = .62; I<sup>2</sup>: 0%) and prosthetic complications (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.59; <i>P</i> = .83; I<sup>2</sup>: 0%) were similar in both groups. Biologic complications were significantly higher in regular implants with graft (RR: 0.48; CI: 0.29 to 0.77; <i>P</i> = .003; I<sup>2</sup>: 18%), which also had lower peri-implant bone stability in the mandible at the 12-month follow-up (mean deviation [MD]: -0.25; CI: -0.36 to 0.15; <i>P</i> < .00001; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). <b>Conclusion:</b> Extra-short implants showed similar effictiveness compared to standard-length implants placed in grafted regions at different longitudinal follow-up times and present reduced biologic complications, shorter treatment times, and greater peri-implant bone crest stability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"29-36\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"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.9990\",\"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.9990","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: 2

摘要

目的:评价超短种植体与标准长度种植体在不同纵向随访时间内移植区域的有效性。材料和方法:按照PRISMA标准进行系统评价。LILACS、MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane Library和Embase数据库,包括灰色文献和手动检索,在没有语言或日期限制的情况下进行。研究选择、偏倚风险(Rob 2.0)、证据质量(GRADE)和数据收集由两名独立审稿人进行。分歧由第三位审稿人解决。数据采用随机效应模型合并。结果:共鉴定了1,383份出版物,其中11份来自4项随机临床试验,评估了186名患者的567个种植体(276个超短种植体和291个常规种植体)。荟萃分析显示,损失(风险比[RR]: 1.24;95% CI: 0.53 ~ 2.89;P = .62;I2: 0%)和假体并发症(RR: 0.89;95% CI: 0.31 ~ 2.59;P = .83;I2: 0%),两组相似。常规种植体与移植物的生物并发症明显高于常规种植体(RR: 0.48;CI: 0.29 ~ 0.77;P = .003;I2: 18%),在12个月的随访中,下颌种植体周围的骨稳定性也较低(平均偏差[MD]: -0.25;CI: -0.36 ~ 0.15;P < 0.00001;I2 = 0%)。结论:在不同的纵向随访时间内,超短种植体与标准长度种植体相比具有相似的疗效,并且具有更少的生物并发症,更短的治疗时间和更大的种植体周围骨嵴稳定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of Extra-Short (< 6 mm) Implants Compared to Standard-Length Implants Associated with Bone Graft: Systematic Review.

Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of extra-short implants compared to standard-length implants in graft regions at different longitudinal follow-up times. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed, following PRISMA criteria. LILACS, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, including gray literature and manual searches, were conducted without language or date restrictions. Study selection, risk of bias (Rob 2.0), quality of evidence (GRADE), and data collection were performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Data were combined using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 1,383 publications were identified, including 11 publications from 4 randomized clinical trials that evaluated 567 implants (276 extra-short and 291 regular implants with graft) in 186 patients. The meta-analysis showed that losses (risk ratio [RR]: 1.24; 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.89; P = .62; I2: 0%) and prosthetic complications (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.31 to 2.59; P = .83; I2: 0%) were similar in both groups. Biologic complications were significantly higher in regular implants with graft (RR: 0.48; CI: 0.29 to 0.77; P = .003; I2: 18%), which also had lower peri-implant bone stability in the mandible at the 12-month follow-up (mean deviation [MD]: -0.25; CI: -0.36 to 0.15; P < .00001; I2 = 0%). Conclusion: Extra-short implants showed similar effictiveness compared to standard-length implants placed in grafted regions at different longitudinal follow-up times and present reduced biologic complications, shorter treatment times, and greater peri-implant bone crest stability.

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
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
6 months
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.
×
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