Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Universitaire Ziekenhuizen Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J Periodontal Res. 2022 Aug;57(4):754-767. doi: 10.1111/jre.12998. Epub 2022 May 25.
The objective of this review was to assess the accuracy of available means of determining the BBT (buccal bone thickness) and/or BBL (buccal bone level). This was translated into the following research question: What is the accuracy of the available means of visualizing the BBP (buccal bone plate) to establish the BBT and/or the BBL, when compared to control measurements? As control measurements histomorphometric measurements, direct measurements and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) measurements in the absence of metal are accepted.
METHODS: The literary search was performed by searching the databases of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, up to July 13, 2021. Types of studies included were clinical, in vitro and animal trials, specifically looking into the bone level and/or bone thickness of the buccal bone plate at oral implants. Reference lists were hand searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers performed the data extraction and analysis. Only studies using reliable control measurements to evaluate the accuracy of the tested means of visualizing BBT and/or BBL were included for analysis. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to perform bias analysis on the relevant studies. Extracted data was tabulated to show the differences between test and control measurements for BBT and BBL. For in vitro studies on CBCT measurements of BBT meta-analysis could be performed.
A total of 1176 papers were identified in the search. Twenty-two articles were used for data extraction and qualitative analysis. Of these studies nine were animal studies, 9 were in vitro studies and four were human studies. Six animal studies and three human studies provided data on probing. CBCT and sonography as techniques for visualizing the buccal bone plate. Probing at implant sites seems to provide data that correlates with a consistent distance from the BBP. Meta-analysis for probing studies could not be performed due to heterogeneity in the setups of these studies. Eleven studies on CBCT were eligible for inclusion. Of these three were animal studies, the remaining 8 studies were all in vitro studies. Meta-analysis was performed on the accuracy of CBCT for in vitro studies, finding a significant underestimation of the BBT when compared to control measurements by a mean difference of -0.15 mm with 95%CI [-0.26,-0.03]. Three studies were identified on measurement of BBT and/or BBL by sonography. This included one human study and two in vitro studies. The identified studies show a low error when determining the buccal bone level or thickness using sonography. All included studies possess a high risk of bias according to risk of bias analysis, mostly due to selection of the patient.
A strong limitation of this systematic review is the inclusion of different studies with heterogeneous designs. Within the limits of this analysis it cannot be concluded that probing is an accurate way of visualizing the BBP. CBCT cannot yet be recommended as a standard diagnostic tool for follow-up of the BBP at oral implants. The application of sonography as a diagnostic tool to visualize the BBP needs further scientific validation.
本次综述的目的是评估现有的确定 BBT(颊骨厚度)和/或 BBL(颊骨水平)的方法的准确性。这被转化为以下研究问题:在没有金属的情况下,与对照测量相比,现有的可视化 BBP(颊骨板)以确定 BBT 和/或 BBL 的方法的准确性如何?对照测量包括组织形态测量、直接测量和锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)测量。
方法:通过搜索 MEDLINE、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库,对截至 2021 年 7 月 13 日的文献进行了检索。纳入的研究类型包括临床、体外和动物试验,专门研究口腔种植体颊侧骨板的骨水平和/或骨厚度。对相关文章进行了参考文献检索。两名审查员进行了数据提取和分析。仅纳入使用可靠对照测量来评估测试方法可视化 BBT 和/或 BBL 准确性的研究进行分析。使用 QUADAS-2 工具对相关研究进行偏倚分析。提取的数据列成表格,显示 BBT 和 BBL 测试和对照测量之间的差异。对于 CBCT 对 BBT 的体外研究,可以进行 meta 分析。
搜索共确定了 1176 篇论文。22 篇文章用于数据提取和定性分析。其中 9 项为动物研究,9 项为体外研究,4 项为人体研究。6 项动物研究和 3 项人体研究提供了关于探测的研究数据。CBCT 和超声作为可视化颊骨板的技术。在种植体部位进行探测似乎提供了与 BBP 一致距离的相关数据。由于这些研究的设置存在异质性,无法对探测研究进行 meta 分析。有 11 项关于 CBCT 的研究符合纳入标准。其中 3 项为动物研究,其余 8 项均为体外研究。对体外研究的 CBCT 准确性进行了 meta 分析,发现与对照测量相比,CBCT 存在显著低估,平均差异为-0.15mm,95%CI[-0.26,-0.03]。有 3 项研究确定了超声测量 BBT 和/或 BBL。这包括一项人体研究和两项体外研究。确定的研究表明,使用超声确定颊骨水平或厚度时误差较小。根据偏倚风险分析,所有纳入的研究都存在较高的偏倚风险,主要是由于患者选择的原因。
本系统综述的一个主要局限性是纳入了设计不同的不同研究。在本分析的范围内,不能得出探测是可视化 BBP 的准确方法的结论。CBCT 还不能被推荐为口腔种植体 BBP 随访的标准诊断工具。超声作为一种诊断工具来可视化 BBP 的应用需要进一步的科学验证。