引导和导航种植手术:系统回顾。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Tara Aghaloo, Danny Hadaya, Todd R Schoenbaum, Lauren Pratt, Mehrdad Favagehi
{"title":"引导和导航种植手术:系统回顾。","authors":"Tara Aghaloo,&nbsp;Danny Hadaya,&nbsp;Todd R Schoenbaum,&nbsp;Lauren Pratt,&nbsp;Mehrdad Favagehi","doi":"10.11607/jomi.10465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate how guided and navigation surgical approaches for implant placement affect survival and accuracy. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. The reviews were refereed by two independent investigators using the following PICO question: population-patients with missing maxillary or mandibular teeth; intervention-dental implant guided surgery, dental implant navigation surgery; comparison-conventional implant surgery or historical control; outcome-implant survival, implant accuracy. Single-arm, weighted meta-analyses were performed on navigational and static guided surgery groups for cumulative survival rate and accuracy of implant placement (ie, angular, depth, and horizontal deviation). Group metrics with less than five reports were not synthesized. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. <b>Results:</b> A total of 3,930 articles were screened. Full-text review of 93 articles resulted in a total of 56 articles included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Implant placement with a fully guided approach resulted in the following means and 95% CI: cumulative survival rate of 97% (96%, 98%), angular deviation of 3.8 degrees (3.4 degrees, 4.2 degrees), depth deviation of 0.5 mm (0.4 mm, 0.6 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 1.2 mm (1.0 mm, 1.3 mm). Implant placement with a navigation approach resulted in an angular deviation of 3.4 degrees (3.0 degrees, 3.9 degrees), horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 0.9 mm (0.8 mm, 1.0 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant apex of 1.2 mm (0.8 mm, 1.5 mm). <b>Conclusion:</b> Static guided and navigation surgical approaches for dental implant placement have survival rates comparable to historical controls. Accuracy of implant placement does not differ markedly between these two approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":50298,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants","volume":"38 suppl","pages":"7-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Guided and Navigation Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Tara Aghaloo,&nbsp;Danny Hadaya,&nbsp;Todd R Schoenbaum,&nbsp;Lauren Pratt,&nbsp;Mehrdad Favagehi\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/jomi.10465\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate how guided and navigation surgical approaches for implant placement affect survival and accuracy. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. The reviews were refereed by two independent investigators using the following PICO question: population-patients with missing maxillary or mandibular teeth; intervention-dental implant guided surgery, dental implant navigation surgery; comparison-conventional implant surgery or historical control; outcome-implant survival, implant accuracy. Single-arm, weighted meta-analyses were performed on navigational and static guided surgery groups for cumulative survival rate and accuracy of implant placement (ie, angular, depth, and horizontal deviation). Group metrics with less than five reports were not synthesized. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. <b>Results:</b> A total of 3,930 articles were screened. Full-text review of 93 articles resulted in a total of 56 articles included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Implant placement with a fully guided approach resulted in the following means and 95% CI: cumulative survival rate of 97% (96%, 98%), angular deviation of 3.8 degrees (3.4 degrees, 4.2 degrees), depth deviation of 0.5 mm (0.4 mm, 0.6 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 1.2 mm (1.0 mm, 1.3 mm). Implant placement with a navigation approach resulted in an angular deviation of 3.4 degrees (3.0 degrees, 3.9 degrees), horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 0.9 mm (0.8 mm, 1.0 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant apex of 1.2 mm (0.8 mm, 1.5 mm). <b>Conclusion:</b> Static guided and navigation surgical approaches for dental implant placement have survival rates comparable to historical controls. Accuracy of implant placement does not differ markedly between these two approaches.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"volume\":\"38 suppl\",\"pages\":\"7-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10465\",\"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.10465","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: 1

摘要

目的:评价引导和导航手术入路对种植体置入术的成活率和准确性的影响。材料与方法:在PubMed/Medline和Cochrane图书馆进行电子文献检索。综述由两名独立调查员使用以下PICO问题进行评审:人口-缺失上颌或下颌牙齿的患者;介入-种植牙引导手术,种植牙导航手术;常规种植体手术与历史对照的比较;结果-种植体存活,种植体准确性。对导航和静态引导手术组进行单臂加权meta分析,分析累积存活率和种植体放置准确性(即角度、深度和水平偏差)。少于5个报告的组指标没有被合成。该研究是根据PRISMA 2020指南编制的。结果:共筛选3930篇文献。对93篇文章进行全文审查,共纳入56篇文章进行定量综合和分析。采用完全引导入路放置种植体的平均值和95% CI如下:累积存活率为97%(96%,98%),角偏差为3.8度(3.4度,4.2度),深度偏差为0.5 mm (0.4 mm, 0.6 mm),种植体颈部水平偏差为1.2 mm (1.0 mm, 1.3 mm)。导航入路种植体的角度偏差为3.4度(3.0度,3.9度),种植体颈部水平偏差为0.9 mm (0.8 mm, 1.0 mm),种植体尖端水平偏差为1.2 mm (0.8 mm, 1.5 mm)。结论:静态引导和导航手术入路种植牙的生存率与历史对照组相当。种植体放置的准确性在这两种方法之间没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Guided and Navigation Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To evaluate how guided and navigation surgical approaches for implant placement affect survival and accuracy. Materials and Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted in PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library. The reviews were refereed by two independent investigators using the following PICO question: population-patients with missing maxillary or mandibular teeth; intervention-dental implant guided surgery, dental implant navigation surgery; comparison-conventional implant surgery or historical control; outcome-implant survival, implant accuracy. Single-arm, weighted meta-analyses were performed on navigational and static guided surgery groups for cumulative survival rate and accuracy of implant placement (ie, angular, depth, and horizontal deviation). Group metrics with less than five reports were not synthesized. The study was compiled under PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Results: A total of 3,930 articles were screened. Full-text review of 93 articles resulted in a total of 56 articles included for quantitative synthesis and analysis. Implant placement with a fully guided approach resulted in the following means and 95% CI: cumulative survival rate of 97% (96%, 98%), angular deviation of 3.8 degrees (3.4 degrees, 4.2 degrees), depth deviation of 0.5 mm (0.4 mm, 0.6 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 1.2 mm (1.0 mm, 1.3 mm). Implant placement with a navigation approach resulted in an angular deviation of 3.4 degrees (3.0 degrees, 3.9 degrees), horizontal deviation at the implant neck of 0.9 mm (0.8 mm, 1.0 mm), and horizontal deviation at the implant apex of 1.2 mm (0.8 mm, 1.5 mm). Conclusion: Static guided and navigation surgical approaches for dental implant placement have survival rates comparable to historical controls. Accuracy of implant placement does not differ markedly between these two approaches.

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