Zubizarreta-Macho Álvaro, Tosin Roberta, Tosin Fabio, Velasco Bohórquez Pilar, San Hipólito Marín Lara, Montiel-Company José María, Mena-Álvarez Jesús, Hernández Montero Sofía
Department of Implant Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, Alfonso X El Sabio University, 28691 Madrid, Spain.
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain.
J Clin Med. 2022 Feb 18;11(4):1062. doi: 10.3390/jcm11041062.
Several regeneration techniques and materials have been proposed for the healing of bone defects after surgical endodontic treatment; however, the existing literature does not provide evidence on the most recommended techniques or materials. The aim of the present systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to summarize the clinical evidence on the efficacy of guided tissue regeneration techniques (GRTs). The PRISMA recommendations were followed. Four databases were searched up to December 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A fixed effects model and frequentist approach were used in the NMA. Direct GRT technique comparisons were combined to estimate indirect comparisons, and the estimated effect size of the comparisons was analyzed using the odds ratio (OR). Inconsistency was assessed with the Q test, with a significance level of < 0.01, and a net heat plot. A total of 274 articles was identified, and 11 RCTs (6 direct comparisons of 15 techniques) were included in the NMA, which examined 6 GRT techniques: control, Os, PL, MB, MB + Os, and MB + PL. The MB + Os group compared to the control (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.36-9.90) and to the MB group (OR = 3.47, 95% CI: 1.07-11.3) showed statistically significant ORs ( ˂ 0.05). The MB + Os group presented the highest degree of certainly (P-score = 0.93).
已经提出了几种用于牙髓外科治疗后骨缺损愈合的再生技术和材料;然而,现有文献并未提供关于最推荐技术或材料的证据。本系统评价和网状Meta分析(NMA)的目的是总结引导组织再生技术(GRTs)疗效的临床证据。遵循PRISMA建议。检索了截至2021年12月的四个数据库。纳入了随访至少6个月的随机临床试验(RCTs)。使用Cochrane协作工具评估偏倚风险。NMA采用固定效应模型和频率学派方法。将直接GRT技术比较合并以估计间接比较,并使用优势比(OR)分析比较的估计效应量。使用Q检验评估不一致性,显著性水平<0.01,并绘制净热图。共识别出274篇文章,11项RCTs(15种技术的6项直接比较)纳入NMA,其研究了6种GRT技术:对照组、Os、PL、MB、MB+Os和MB+PL。与对照组相比(OR = 3.67,95%CI:1.36 - 9.90)以及与MB组相比(OR = 3.47,95%CI:1.07 - 11.3),MB + Os组显示出具有统计学意义的OR值(˂ 0.05)。MB + Os组具有最高的确定性程度(P值 = 0.93)。