Heiderich Clovis Marinho Carvalho, Tedesco Tamara Kerber, Netto Syrio Simão, de Sousa Rafael Celestino, Allegrini Júnior Sergio, Mendes Fausto M, Gimenez Thais
Graduate Program in Dentistry, Ibirapuera University, Av. Interlagos, 1329, São Paulo, Brazil.
Faculdade São Leopoldo Mandic, Instituto de Pesquisas São Leopoldo Mandic (SLM), Campinas, Brazil.
Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020 Nov;56(1):135-146. doi: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.09.004. Epub 2020 Oct 14.
There are several systematic reviews of multiple implant loading techniques, but results are conflicting.
To perform an umbrella review on methodological quality of systematic reviews about techniques for loading multiple dental implants.
MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were searched up to December 31, 2019. Unpublished literature was searched through OpenGray and references of included articles were manually verified. Eligibility criteria were: articles had to (1) be about multiple dental implants; (2) mention the moment of loading; (3) be a systematic review. Two independent reviewers participated in the entire process. Qualitative description of included studies as well as methodological quality measurement and risk of bias through AMSTAR and ROBIS were performed.
21 reviews were included. Thirteen stated that there was a similarity between loading techniques, two did not affirm which one was more appropriate and six mentioned that conventional technique was better. Eight papers were classified as high risk of bias, twelve as low and one as uncertain risk.
When evaluating only studies with a low risk of bias, there are no significant differences in implant loading time.
有多项关于多种种植体加载技术的系统评价，但结果相互矛盾。
对关于多颗牙种植体加载技术的系统评价的方法学质量进行综合评价。
检索截至2019年12月31日的MEDLINE（PubMed）和Scopus数据库。通过OpenGray检索未发表的文献，并手动核查纳入文章的参考文献。纳入标准为：文章必须（1）关于多颗牙种植体；（2）提及加载时机；（3）为系统评价。两名独立的评审员参与了整个过程。对纳入研究进行定性描述，并通过AMSTAR和ROBIS进行方法学质量测量和偏倚风险评估。
纳入21篇综述。13篇指出加载技术之间存在相似性，2篇未确定哪种技术更合适，6篇提到传统技术更好。8篇论文被归类为高偏倚风险，12篇为低偏倚风险，1篇为不确定偏倚风险。
仅评估偏倚风险较低的研究时，种植体加载时间无显著差异。
