Isola Gaetano, Nucera Riccardo, Damonte Silvia, Ugolini Alessandro, De Mari Anna, Migliorati Marco
Department of General Surgery and Surgical-Medical Specialties, School of Dentistry, University of Catania, 95123 Catania, Italy.
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, Section of Orthodontics, University of Messina, 98100 Messina, Italy.
J Clin Med. 2022 Oct 27;11(21):6347. doi: 10.3390/jcm11216347.
Both surgical and non-surgical techniques are employed for implant site development. However, the efficacy of these methods has not been thoroughly evaluated and compared. This systematic review aims to compare the biologic, functional and esthetic outcomes of three different approaches before implant placement in both the maxillary and mandibular arches: orthodontic extrusion, regenerative surgery and spontaneous healing after extraction. The systematic research of articles was conducted up to January 2020 in Medline, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases. Studies were selected in a three-stage process according to the title, the abstract and the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included studies were evaluated using ROBINS-I tools for non-randomized studies, Rob 2.0 for RCT. Quality evaluation of case reports was performed using CARE guidelines. Through the digital search, 1607 articles were identified, and 25 of them were included in the systematic review. The qualitative evaluation showed a good methodological quality for RCT, sufficient for non-randomized studies and poor for case reports. Based on the available results, both orthodontic extrusion and regenerative surgery allowed the development of the implant site with satisfying esthetic and functional outcomes. Studies about the spontaneous healing of the extraction socket showed resorption of the edentulous ridge, which complicated the implant insertion. No study referred to failures or severe complications. Most of the studies reported only qualitative results. The present systematic review demonstrated that there is a substantial lack of data and evidence to determine which of the presented methods is better for developing a future implant site. Both surgical and non-surgical procedures appear effective in the regeneration of hard tissue, whereas not all the techniques can improve soft tissue volume, too. The orthodontic technique simultaneously enhances both hard and soft tissue.
种植体植入部位的开发采用了手术和非手术技术。然而,这些方法的疗效尚未得到全面评估和比较。本系统评价旨在比较在上颌和下颌牙弓种植体植入前三种不同方法(正畸牵引、再生手术和拔牙后自然愈合)的生物学、功能和美学效果。截至2020年1月,在Medline、Scopus和Cochrane图书馆数据库中对文章进行了系统检索。根据标题、摘要和纳入标准,分三个阶段选择研究。使用针对非随机研究的ROBINS-I工具和针对随机对照试验的Rob 2.0评估纳入研究的方法学质量和偏倚风险。使用CARE指南对病例报告进行质量评估。通过数字检索,共识别出1607篇文章,其中25篇被纳入系统评价。定性评价显示,随机对照试验的方法学质量良好,非随机研究足够,病例报告较差。根据现有结果,正畸牵引和再生手术都能使种植体植入部位得到发育,美学和功能效果令人满意。关于拔牙窝自然愈合的研究显示无牙颌骨吸收,这使种植体植入变得复杂。没有研究提及失败或严重并发症。大多数研究仅报告了定性结果。本系统评价表明,严重缺乏数据和证据来确定所提出的方法中哪一种更适合于开发未来的种植体植入部位。手术和非手术程序在硬组织再生方面似乎都有效,而并非所有技术都能增加软组织体积。正畸技术能同时增强硬组织和软组织。