Evidence-Based Practice Unit, Clinical Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman City, Ajman Emirate, UAE.
Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
PLoS One. 2022 Apr 4;17(4):e0265491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265491. eCollection 2022.
To minimize trauma and cost of treatment, oral health practitioners have successfully rehabilitated full arches by supporting the prostheses on four implants. However, there is no consensus whether less than four implants supporting full mandibular arches would provide similar clinical outcomes to other well-established all-on-four alternative.
To identify, summarize, appraise, and compare the clinical outcomes evidence of three-implant fixed full-arch prostheses in completely edentulous mandibular patients.
This overview of systematic reviews (OoSRs) will include secondary synthesis studies (i.e., systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis). A three-step search strategy will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS Core Collection), and Google Scholar. Grey literature and a manual search in 12 specialized journals will also be conducted. Three independent reviewers will screen all retrieved articles for eligibility, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The results will be presented as tables or narrative synthesis. The studies will be evaluated for risk of bias by ROBIS and methodology quality by the AMSTAR-2 tool. If new primary studies are identified, a meta-analysis will be conducted. Certainty of the evidence will be assessed to answer the following focused research question: In edentulous mandibular patients, what are the implant and prostheses clinical outcomes of three-implant fixed full-arch prostheses compared to other all-on-x solutions?
There are some systematic reviews about the use of fixed complete dental prostheses supported by three implants; however, their clinical outcomes related to the other all-on-four plus solutions are conflicting. So, an overview on this topic is required to provide recommendations.
International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID#: CRD42021262175. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
为了最大限度地减少创伤和治疗成本，口腔健康从业者成功地通过在四颗种植体上支撑义齿来修复全牙弓。然而，对于少于四颗种植体支撑全下颌牙弓是否会提供与其他成熟的全四替代方案相似的临床结果，尚无共识。
确定、总结、评价和比较三种植体固定全牙弓在下颌完全缺牙患者中的临床效果证据。
本系统评价概述（OoSR）将包括二次综合研究（即有或没有荟萃分析的系统评价）。将在 MEDLINE（Ovid）、EMBASE（Ovid）、Cochrane 系统评价数据库、Scopus、Web of Science（WoS 核心合集）和 Google Scholar 中进行三步搜索策略。还将检索灰色文献和 12 种专业期刊的手工搜索。三名独立评审员将筛选所有检索到的文章，以确定其是否符合入选标准，提取数据并评估纳入研究的方法学质量。结果将以表格或叙述性综合形式呈现。将使用 ROBIS 评估研究的偏倚风险，并使用 AMSTAR-2 工具评估方法学质量。如果发现新的原始研究，将进行荟萃分析。将评估证据的确定性，以回答以下重点研究问题：在下颌无牙患者中，与其他全 x 解决方案相比，三种植体固定全牙弓的种植体和修复体的临床效果如何？
有一些关于使用三颗种植体支撑的固定全牙列修复体的系统评价；然而，它们与其他全四加解决方案的临床效果存在争议。因此，需要对此主题进行概述，以提供建议。
国际前瞻性系统评价注册库（PROSPERO）ID#：CRD42021262175。英国国家卫生研究院（NIHR）和约克大学评论与传播中心，约克，英国。
