口腔扁平苔藓是否是种植体周围疾病的危险因素？系统评价和荟萃分析。

Is oral lichen planus a risk factor for peri-implant diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Periodontology and Oral Medicine, Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, NO.195 Dongfeng West Road, Guangzhou, 510140, China.

出版信息

BMC Oral Health. 2020 May 20;20(1):150. doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01134-2.

DOI:10.1186/s12903-020-01134-2

PMID:32434508

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7240920/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To evaluate whether oral lichen planus (OLP) is a risk factor for peri-implant diseases (PIDs) with a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Five electronic databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library and Scopus were searched. The included studies are observational human studies written in English. The population of interest included those with/without OLP who received dental implant treatment. The follow-up time after implantation was from 1 month to 20 years. The quality of the included articles regarding risk of bias and methodology were assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The data involving exposure (OLP), primary outcomes (implants having PIDs) and secondary outcomes (probing depth/PD, bleeding on probing/BOP and bone loss/BL) and potential confounders were extracted. Heterogeneity was assessed by I test. Dichotomous data are expressed as the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) which were calculated with a fixed effect model.

RESULTS

Of the 66 articles, two studies were enrolled and evaluated as high quality, which totally contained 68 participants receiving 222 (OLP vs. non-OLP, 112 vs. 110) implants with 12 to 120-month follow-up time. Proportions of implants with PIDs between OLP and non-OLP groups were as follows: 19.6% (22/112) vs. 22.7% (25/110) for PIM and 17.0% (19/112) vs. 10.9% (12/110) for PI. The meta-analysis revealed no recognizable difference in number of implants with PIDs (PI: RR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.77-2.90, P = 0.24; PIM:RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.53-1.46, P = 0.61; PIDs: RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.75-1.55, P = 0.68) or BOP (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.70-1.15, P = 0.40) between OLP and non-OLP groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Available articles regarding the effects of OLP on PIDs remains very limited. Existing evidence does not support OLP as a suspected risk factor for PIDs. Large-scale prospective trials are required to validate the findings.

摘要

背景

通过系统评价和荟萃分析评估口腔扁平苔藓（OLP）是否是种植体周围疾病（PIDs）的危险因素。

方法

检索了五个电子数据库，包括 Medline、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane 图书馆和 Scopus。纳入的研究为观察性人类研究，采用英文撰写。研究对象为接受牙种植治疗的有/无 OLP 患者。种植后随访时间为 1 个月至 20 年。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表或医疗保健研究与质量 Agency 评估纳入文章的偏倚风险和方法学质量。提取涉及暴露（OLP）、主要结局（发生 PIDs 的种植体）和次要结局（探诊深度/PD、探诊出血/BOP 和骨丧失/BL）和潜在混杂因素的数据。采用 I ²检验评估异质性。二分类数据表示为风险比（RR）和 95%置信区间（CI），采用固定效应模型计算。

结果

在 66 篇文章中，有 2 项研究被纳入并评估为高质量，共纳入 68 名患者的 222 颗种植体（OLP 与非 OLP 组，112 颗与 110 颗），随访时间为 12 至 120 个月。OLP 组和非 OLP 组发生 PIDs 的种植体比例如下：PIM：22/112（19.6%）与 25/110（22.7%）；PI：19/112（17.0%）与 12/110（10.9%）。荟萃分析显示，发生 PIDs 的种植体数量无明显差异（PI：RR=1.49，95%CI 0.77-2.90，P=0.24；PIM：RR=0.88，95%CI 0.53-1.46，P=0.61；PIDs：RR=1.08，95%CI 0.75-1.55，P=0.68）或探诊出血（BOP：RR=0.90，95%CI：0.70-1.15，P=0.40）在 OLP 组和非 OLP 组之间。