DCT 1, Restorative Dentistry, Aberdeen Dental Hospital, Aberdeen, UK.
DCT 2, Restorative Dentistry, Aberdeen Dental Hospital, Aberdeen, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2020 Dec;21(4):126-127. doi: 10.1038/s41432-020-0133-3.
Data sources A search of electronic databases (Embase and PubMed) was carried out along with manual and grey searches of published and unpublished journals. Publication year was from first available until 23 August 2018.Study selection Titles and abstracts from the original search were reviewed by two authors. Studies were chosen for full-text analysis and data extraction after inter-reviewer agreement. Disagreement was resolved by discussion and Cohen's kappa was used to measure inter-reviewer agreement. An initial search gave 2,197 articles and, following screening, 18 publications were included in the study. Five articles were case series and ten were case reports describing one to nine cases. Three publications reported on comparatively large sample sizes, one prospectively and two retrospectively. None of the studies had control groups or blinding. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality assessment. Studies were deemed to have high, low or unclear levels of bias by two examiners. All were considered high risk of bias. Publications included fulfilled the following criteria: English language, human studies, endosseous osseointegrated dental implants, explantation technique described and reason for explantation clearly reported.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline process. Studies chosen for analysis were examined and the following data parameters were included: study design, number of patients, number of implants removed, implant system, reason for explantation, explantation technique and its success or failure, complications, flap access, socket grafting and immediate implant placement.Results The following five techniques for explantation of dental implants were identified: reverse torque, trephines, piezosurgery, burs and laser-assisted explantation. Reverse torque was the most commonly described technique (284 implants) with 87.7% success. Burs were used to remove 49 implants with 100% success, while trephines were used for explantation of 35 implants with 94% success. Piezosurgery and Er, Cr: YSGG laser removed 11 implants and one implant, respectively, with 100% success. One study reported perforation of the maxillary sinus floor following the use of a trephine technique, while another reported the fracture of three implants using reverse torque. The quality of the studies and lack of available data prevented further analysis. Results were presented in a narrative format.Conclusion The authors recommend reverse torque as the first choice for explantation. Despite its inferior success rate, it is the most conservative technique in terms of bone removal and flap access, meaning there is a greater opportunity for immediate implant placement.
对电子数据库(Embase 和 PubMed)进行了检索,并对已发表和未发表的期刊进行了手工和灰色检索。检索年限为从最早可获得的时间到 2018 年 8 月 23 日。
两名作者对原始搜索的标题和摘要进行了审查。在经过两位作者的一致审查后,选择进行全文分析和数据提取。通过讨论解决分歧,并使用 Cohen's kappa 来衡量两位作者之间的一致性。最初的搜索得到了 2197 篇文章,经过筛选,有 18 篇文章被纳入研究。其中 5 篇为病例系列,10 篇为病例报告,描述了 1 到 9 个病例。有 3 篇出版物报告了相对较大的样本量,其中 1 篇为前瞻性研究,2 篇为回顾性研究。这些研究均没有对照组或盲法。使用 QUADAS-2 工具进行质量评估。两位评估者认为,所有研究都具有高度偏倚或低度偏倚,均具有较高的偏倚风险。被纳入的出版物符合以下标准:英文,人类研究,骨内骨整合牙种植体,描述了取除技术,以及明确报告了取除原因。
数据提取遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南流程。对选择进行分析的研究进行了检查,并包括以下数据参数:研究设计、患者数量、取出的种植体数量、种植系统、取除原因、取除技术及其成功或失败、并发症、翻瓣术、牙槽窝植骨术和即刻种植。
确定了以下五种牙种植体取除技术:反向扭矩、环钻、超声骨刀、磨头和激光辅助取除。反向扭矩是最常描述的技术(284 个种植体),成功率为 87.7%。用磨头取除了 49 个种植体,成功率为 100%,而环钻用于取除 35 个种植体,成功率为 94%。超声骨刀和 Er,Cr:YSGG 激光分别取除了 11 个和 1 个种植体,成功率为 100%。有一项研究报告称,在使用环钻技术时,上颌窦底穿孔,另一项研究报告称,使用反向扭矩时,有 3 个种植体骨折。由于研究质量和缺乏可用数据,无法进行进一步分析。结果以叙述的形式呈现。
作者建议将反向扭矩作为取除的首选方法。尽管其成功率较低,但在骨去除和翻瓣术方面,它是最保守的技术,这意味着有更大的机会进行即刻种植。