Suppr超能文献

种植体支持或覆盖义齿周围边缘骨丧失的系统评价。

A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures.

机构信息

CosmORAL Oral and Dental Health Polyclinics, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Mar-Apr;25(2):266-77.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate, through a systematic review of the literature, the effects of implant design and attachment type on marginal bone loss in implant-retained/supported overdentures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With the combined search terms "implant and overdenture," "implant-supported overdenture," "implant-retained overdenture," and "implant-anchored overdenture," along with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible articles between 1997 and 2008 (up to April 1) were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, the Cochrane Library databases, and seven journals by hand searching. Marginal bone loss values with regard to time, attachment type, and implant system used were compared by Kruskal-Wallis tests. Means and standard deviations of data were combined using fixed- and random-effect models and evaluated using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-six articles were included in the analyses; data extraction and meta-analysis were able to be conducted on eight studies. Data regarding maxillary overdentures could not be analyzed statistically. Bone loss around mandibular implants did not seem to be influenced by implant system or attachment design (bar, ball, magnet, and other types) in the first year, from 1 to = or < 5 years, and even after 5 years (P > .05). Meta-analysis could not detect differences in implant systems or attachment types (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature that identified a total of 4,200 implants from 13 manufacturers, there was no difference in marginal bone loss around implants retaining/supporting mandibular overdentures relative to implant type or attachment designs.

摘要

目的

通过对文献的系统评价,评估种植体设计和附着体类型对种植体支持覆盖义齿边缘骨丧失的影响。

材料与方法

通过联合检索词“implant and overdenture”、“implant-supported overdenture”、“implant-retained overdenture”和“implant-anchored overdenture”,以及特定的纳入和排除标准,从 PubMed、EMBASE、OVID、Cochrane 图书馆数据库以及七本期刊进行手工检索,检索到 1997 年至 2008 年(截止到 4 月 1 日)的合格文章。通过 Kruskal-Wallis 检验比较与时间、附着体类型和使用的种植体系统有关的边缘骨丧失值。使用固定效应模型和随机效应模型合并数据的平均值和标准差,并通过荟萃分析进行评估。

结果

46 篇文章被纳入分析;8 项研究的数据提取和荟萃分析得以进行。上颌覆盖义齿的数据无法进行统计学分析。下颌种植体周围的骨丢失在第一年、1 至 = 或 < 5 年以及 5 年以后似乎不受种植体系统或附着体设计(杆、球、磁铁和其他类型)的影响(P >.05)。荟萃分析未能检测到种植体系统或附着体类型之间的差异(P >.05)。

结论

根据对文献的系统评价和荟萃分析,共确定了来自 13 家制造商的 4200 个种植体,在保留/支持下颌覆盖义齿的种植体周围边缘骨丧失方面,种植体类型或附着体设计之间没有差异。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验