Suppr超能文献

与下颌无牙颌相比,上颌无牙颌种植支持覆盖义齿的系统评价:需要多少颗种植体?

A systematic review of implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous maxilla, compared to the mandible: how many implants?

作者信息

Raghoebar Gerry M, Meijer Henny J A, Slot Wim, Slater James J R, Vissink Arjan

出版信息

Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Summer;7 Suppl 2:S191-201.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is now overwhelming evidence from systematic reviews that a two implant overdenture is the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible. Conversely, consensus is lacking for implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the treatment outcome of concepts used for implant-supported maxillary overdentures, focusing on the survival of implants, survival of maxillary overdentures and condition of the implant surrounding hard and soft tissues after a mean observation period of at least 1 year.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

MEDLINE (1950 to December 2013), EMBASE (1966 to December 2013) and CENTRAL (1800 to December 2013) were searched to identify eligible studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the articles using specific study design-related quality assessment forms.

RESULTS

Out of 195 primarily selected articles, 24 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A metaanalysis showed an implant survival rate of 98.1% and overdenture survival of 99.5% per year in the case of ≥ 6 implants and a splinted (bar) anchorage. In the case of ≤ 4 implants and a splinted (bar) anchorage, implant survival rate and overdenture survival were 97.0% and 96.9% per year, respectively. In the case of ≤ 4 implants and a non-splinted anchorage (ball, locator, telescopic crown), implant survival rate and overdenture survival were 88.9% and 98.8% per year, respectively. The condition of the peri-implant tissues was not reported in most studies.

CONCLUSIONS

An implant-supported maxillary overdenture (all studies ≥ 4 implants) provided with a splinted anchorage is accompanied with a high implant and overdenture survival rate (both >95% per year), while there is an increased risk of implant loss when ≤ 4 implants with a non-splinted anchorage are used.

摘要

背景与目的

系统评价已有大量证据表明,两颗种植体覆盖义齿是无牙下颌的首选治疗方式。相反,对于种植体支持的上颌覆盖义齿,目前尚未达成共识。因此,我们系统评价了用于种植体支持上颌覆盖义齿的治疗效果,重点关注种植体的存留率、上颌覆盖义齿的存留率以及在至少1年的平均观察期后种植体周围软硬组织的状况。

材料与方法

检索MEDLINE(1950年至2013年12月)、EMBASE(1966年至2013年12月)和CENTRAL(1800年至2013年12月)以确定符合条件的研究。两名评价者使用特定的与研究设计相关的质量评估表独立评估文章。

结果

在最初筛选的195篇文章中,24项研究符合纳入标准。荟萃分析显示,在种植体≥6颗且采用夹板式(杆)固位的情况下,种植体存留率为每年98.1%,覆盖义齿存留率为每年99.5%。在种植体≤4颗且采用夹板式(杆)固位的情况下,种植体存留率和覆盖义齿存留率分别为每年97.0%和96.9%。在种植体≤4颗且采用非夹板式固位(球、定位器、套筒冠)的情况下,种植体存留率和覆盖义齿存留率分别为每年88.9%和98.8%。大多数研究未报告种植体周围组织的状况。

结论

采用夹板式固位的种植体支持上颌覆盖义齿(所有研究种植体≥4颗)具有较高的种植体和覆盖义齿存留率(均>每年95%),而当使用≤4颗种植体且采用非夹板式固位时,种植体丢失的风险增加。

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