Department of Periodontology, University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, USA.
Int Dent J. 2010 Oct;60(5):359-69.
With an emerging clinician demand for evidence-based decision making for implant therapy, there is a need for an assessment of the strength and quality of evidence available for different implant systems. To the best of the author's knowledge, there is no such systematic review available which assesses studies over a wide time period. This current report thus seeks to fill this void.
A PubMed, Cochrane database, and hand search was conducted for Straumann, Nobel BioCare, 3i and Dentsply using the following limits- English language, RCT, Clinical Trials, Meta- analysis, Date range (Total of 20 years from 1 January 1988-1 January 2008), and using specific search words. Subsequently, a quantitative and qualitative analysis was conducted using risk of bias as a surrogate variable for quality of a study.
Although a large difference was found in the number of clinical trials for Nobel Biocare (higher) and Straumann (lower), there was a minimal difference in the number of randomised controlled trials between these companies. There was also a significant gap between the number of studies for both these companies, compared to the much lower number of relevant studies for 3i and Dentsply. The qualitative analysis revealed that Straumann and Nobel Biocare were closely tied behind 3i for the percentage of studies with the least risk of bias; though we need to keep in mind that 3i had far fewer relevant studies compared to both Nobel BioCare and Straumann.
This systematic review provides an assessment of the strength and quality of evidence for four leading implant companies. Clinicians should assess the strength of evidence before choosing an implant system. Following the guidelines from the CONSORT statement for future studies might enable standardisation and comparison across different implant systems.
随着临床医生对基于证据的植入物治疗决策的需求不断增加，需要对不同植入物系统的可用证据的强度和质量进行评估。据作者所知，目前还没有这样的系统评价来评估广泛时间范围内的研究。因此，本报告旨在填补这一空白。
使用以下限制条件-英语语言、RCT、临床试验、荟萃分析、日期范围（从 1988 年 1 月 1 日至 2008 年 1 月 1 日总共 20 年），对 Straumann、Nobel BioCare、3i 和 Dentsply 进行了 PubMed、Cochrane 数据库和手工搜索，并使用特定的搜索词。随后，使用偏倚风险作为研究质量的替代变量进行了定量和定性分析。
尽管 Nobel Biocare（较多）和 Straumann（较少）的临床试验数量存在较大差异，但这两家公司的随机对照试验数量差异最小。与这两家公司相比，3i 和 Dentsply 的相关研究数量要少得多，这两家公司的研究数量也存在显著差距。定性分析表明，Straumann 和 Nobel Biocare 在具有最小偏倚风险的研究百分比方面紧随 3i 之后；尽管我们需要记住，3i 的相关研究数量远远少于 Nobel Biocare 和 Straumann。
本系统评价对四家领先的植入物公司的证据强度和质量进行了评估。临床医生在选择植入物系统之前应评估证据的强度。根据 CONSORT 声明的指导原则进行未来的研究，可能会使不同植入物系统的标准化和比较成为可能。
