Suppr超能文献

两种不同设备获取的种植体稳定性测量值之间的关系:系统评价。

Relationship Between Implant Stability Measurements Obtained by Two Different Devices: A Systematic Review.

机构信息

Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São Paulo State University, UNESP, School of Dentistry of Araçatuba, Araçatuba, Brazil.

出版信息

J Periodontol. 2017 Mar;88(3):281-288. doi: 10.1902/jop.2016.160436. Epub 2016 Oct 21.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the relationship between two methods used to assess implant stability, investigating whether both provide similar implant stability assessments for the same clinical case.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted on MEDLINE-PubMed and Scopus databases, without limitation of the publication period, up to November 2015. The following key words were used, with associations among them: "dental implant," "dental implants," "Osstell," "resonance frequency analysis," "implant stability quotient," "ISQ," "Periotest," "Periotest value," and "PTV." Inclusion criteria were English language, prospective, retrospective, and randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated implant stability through use of resonance frequency analysis (RFA) and damping capacity analysis (DCA). The study should assess implant stability of only a specific region for all patients or discriminate results evaluated for each region if the analysis had been made in various regions; RFA and DCA should have been applied in the same implants and periods. Studies have been carefully selected, and data of interest were tabulated.

RESULTS

Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Although there was significant numerical correlation between values obtained by both methods, data showed that less than half (46%) of cases coincided in relation to implant stability classification.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be considered that there is not always a consensus and standardization in the classification of implant stability related to the values obtained by RFA and DCA devices, which could create disagreements and miscommunication among dentistry professionals.

摘要

背景

本系统评价的目的是评估两种评估种植体稳定性的方法之间的关系,以调查这两种方法是否对同一临床病例提供类似的种植体稳定性评估。

方法

对 MEDLINE-PubMed 和 Scopus 数据库进行文献检索,未限制检索时间,截止至 2015 年 11 月。使用以下关键词进行检索,并用关联词进行连接:“dental implant”“dental implants”“Osstell”“resonance frequency analysis”“implant stability quotient”“ISQ”“Periotest”“Periotest value”和“PTV”。纳入标准为:英语语言、前瞻性、回顾性和随机对照临床试验,通过共振频率分析(RFA)和阻尼能力分析(DCA)评估种植体稳定性。研究应评估所有患者特定区域的种植体稳定性,或者如果在不同区域进行分析,则应区分针对每个区域评估的结果;RFA 和 DCA 应应用于相同的种植体和时期。对研究进行了仔细选择,并对感兴趣的数据进行了制表。

结果

有 6 项研究符合纳入标准。尽管两种方法获得的数值之间存在显著的相关性,但数据显示,不到一半(46%)的病例在种植体稳定性分类方面存在一致性。

结论

可以认为,RFA 和 DCA 设备获得的种植体稳定性相关值的分类并不总是一致和标准化的,这可能会导致牙科专业人员之间的分歧和沟通不畅。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验