Peditto Matteo, Rupe Cosimo, Gambino Giorgia, Di Martino Maria, Barbato Luigi, Cairo Francesco, Oteri Giacomo, Cavalcanti Raffaele
Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences, Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Research Unit in Periodontology and Periodontal Medicine-Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Florence, Firenze, Italy.
J Periodontal Res. 2024 Dec;59(6):1047-1061. doi: 10.1111/jre.13286. Epub 2024 May 20.
The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess whether tooth mobility (TM) increases the risk of tooth extraction/loss. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42023485425). The focused PECO questions were as follows: (1) "In patients with periodontitis, undergoing periodontal treatment, are teeth affected by mobility at higher risk of being extracted/lost compared to non-mobile teeth, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?" and (2) "In these patients, does varying degrees of tooth mobility increase the risk of tooth extraction/loss, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years?". Results were reported according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify longitudinal studies. The different assessments of tooth mobility were pooled into three groups: TM0: Undetectable tooth mobility, TM1: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility ≤1 mm, TM2: Horizontal/Mesio-distal mobility >1 mm or vertical tooth mobility. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. Various meta-analyses were conducted, including subgroup analyses considering different follow-up lengths and the timing of TM assessment, along with sensitivity analyses. A trial sequential analysis was also performed. Eleven studies were included (1883 patients). The mean follow-up range was 10-25 years. The weighted total of included teeth, based on the sample size, was 18 918, with a total of 1604 (8.47%) extracted/lost teeth. The overall rate of tooth extraction/loss increased with increasing mobility: TM0 was associated with a 5.85% rate (866/14822), TM1 with the 11.8% (384/3255), TM2 with the 40.3% (339/841). Mobile teeth (TM1/TM2) were at an increased risk for tooth extraction/loss, compared to TM0 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 1.88-4.32]; p < .00001). TM1 had a higher risk than TM0 (HR: 1.96; [95% CI 1.09-3.53]; p < .00001). TM2 had a higher risk than TM1 (HR: 2.85; [95% CI 2.19-3.70]; p < .00001) and TM0 (HR: 7.12; [95% CI 3.27-15.51]; p < .00001). The results of the tests for subgroup differences were not significant. Sensitivity meta-analyses yielded consistent results with other meta-analyses. Within the limits of the quality of the studies included in the meta-analyses, mobile teeth were at higher risk of being extracted/lost in the long-term and higher degrees of TM significantly influenced clinicians' decision to extract a tooth. However, most teeth can be retained in the long-term and thus TM should not be considered a reason for extraction or a risk factor for tooth loss, regardless of the degree of TM.
本系统评价(SR)的目的是评估牙齿松动度(TM)是否会增加拔牙/牙齿缺失的风险。该方案已在PROSPERO数据库(CRD42023485425)中注册。重点PECO问题如下:(1)“在接受牙周治疗的牙周炎患者中,与无松动的牙齿相比,有松动的牙齿在至少随访10年的情况下,被拔除/缺失的风险是否更高?”以及(2)“在这些患者中,不同程度的牙齿松动度在至少随访10年的情况下是否会增加拔牙/牙齿缺失的风险?”结果根据PRISMA声明进行报告。通过电子和手动检索来识别纵向研究。对牙齿松动度的不同评估分为三组:TM0:无法检测到牙齿松动,TM1:水平/近远中松动度≤1mm,TM2:水平/近远中松动度>1mm或垂直牙齿松动。牙齿缺失是主要结局。进行了各种荟萃分析,包括考虑不同随访时长和TM评估时间的亚组分析,以及敏感性分析。还进行了试验序贯分析。纳入了11项研究(1883例患者)。平均随访范围为10至25年。根据样本量计算,纳入牙齿的加权总数为18918颗,其中共有1604颗(8.47%)牙齿被拔除/缺失。拔牙/牙齿缺失的总体发生率随松动度增加而升高:TM0的发生率为5.85%(866/14822),TM1为11.8%(384/3255),TM2为40.3%(339/841)。与TM0相比,松动牙齿(TM1/TM2)拔牙/牙齿缺失的风险增加(风险比:2.85;[95%置信区间1.88 - 4.32];p <.00001)。TM1的风险高于TM0(风险比:1.96;[95%置信区间1.09 - 3.53];p <.00001)。TM2的风险高于TM1(风险比:2.85;[95%置信区间2.19 - 3.70];p <.00001)和TM0(风险比:7.12;[95%置信区间3.27 - 15.51];p <.00001)。亚组差异检验结果不显著。敏感性荟萃分析与其他荟萃分析结果一致。在荟萃分析所纳入研究的质量范围内,从长期来看,松动牙齿被拔除/缺失的风险更高,且更高程度的TM显著影响临床医生的拔牙决策。然而,大多数牙齿在长期内可以保留,因此无论TM程度如何,TM都不应被视为拔牙的原因或牙齿缺失的风险因素。