Suppr超能文献

种植体支持下颌覆盖义齿的附着类型和数量对种植体周围健康的影响:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Effects of attachment type and number of dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Key Laboratory of Oral Medicine, Guangzhou Institute of Oral Disease, Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Department of Prosthodontic, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.

出版信息

J Prosthodont Res. 2022 Jul 30;66(3):357-373. doi: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00073. Epub 2021 Sep 30.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of overdenture (OD) attachment type and the number of implants supporting mandibular ODs on peri-implant health.

STUDY SELECTION

From inception to October 2020, electronic databases (Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus) were systematically searched. The outcomes of interest were marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), plaque index, bleeding index, and implant survival rate. Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the GeMTC package supported by R. The weighted mean difference and 95% credible interval were estimated.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies with a total of 1166 participants who received 2666 dental implants were included. Except for 4 bar and 4 telescopic, which showed a statistically lower MBL than the 2 locator, all other interventions showed insignificant differences in MBL (P > 0.05). The difference in periodontal probing depth was not statistically significant when comparing the different groups. The pooled implant survival rates of the different interventions ranged from 88.9% to 100%. The rank probability test showed that 4 bar and 4 telescopic had the lowest MBL, 2 magnet and 2 bar had the highest PI, whereas 4 locator showed the least PPD.

CONCLUSION

Except for 4 implants+bar, or telescopic, and 4 locator that, respectively, showed less MBL and PPD compared to some interventions, it seemed that different attachment types and number of implants supporting mandibular ODs have no clear superiority over the other in terms of peri-implant health outcomes.

摘要

目的

评估覆盖义齿(OD)附着体类型和下颌 OD 支持的种植体数量对种植体周围健康的影响。

研究选择

从创建到 2020 年 10 月,系统地检索了电子数据库(Medline/PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和 Scopus)。感兴趣的结果是边缘骨丧失(MBL)、牙周袋探诊深度(PPD)、菌斑指数、出血指数和种植体存活率。使用 R 支持的 GeMTC 包进行贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。估计加权均数差和 95%可信区间。

结果

纳入了 28 项研究,共 1166 名接受 2666 颗牙种植体的患者。除 4 个杆和 4 个伸缩外,它们的 MBL 明显低于 2 个定位器,所有其他干预措施的 MBL 差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。不同组之间牙周探诊深度的差异无统计学意义。不同干预措施的种植体存活率的汇总范围为 88.9%至 100%。等级概率检验显示,4 个杆和 4 个伸缩具有最低的 MBL,2 个磁铁和 2 个杆具有最高的 PI,而 4 个定位器具有最小的 PPD。

结论

除了 4 个植入物+杆或伸缩和 4 个定位器的 MBL 和 PPD 分别低于某些干预措施外,不同的附着体类型和下颌 OD 支持的种植体数量似乎在种植体周围健康结果方面没有明显优于其他方面。

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