Suppr超能文献

部分牙列缺损患者中全引导式牙支持静态外科手术导板的深度畸变和角度偏差:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Depth distortion and angular deviation of a fully guided tooth-supported static surgical guide in a partially edentulous patient: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Floriani Franciele, Jurado Carlos A, Cabrera Alexandre J, Duarte Wagner, Porto Thiago S, Afrashtehfar Kelvin I

机构信息

Department of Prosthodontics, The University of Iowa College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.

Division of Operative dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center College of Dentistry, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.

出版信息

J Prosthodont. 2024 Sep;33(S1):10-24. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13893. Epub 2024 Jul 11.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the depth distortion and angular deviation of fully-guided tooth-supported static surgical guides (FTSG) in partially edentulous arches compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question was: "In partially edentulous arches, what are the depth distortion and angular deviation of FTSG compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand?" The search strategy involved four main electronic databases, and an additional manual search was completed in November 2023 by following an established search strategy. Initial inclusion was based on titles and abstracts, followed by a detailed review of selected studies, and clinical studies that evaluated the angular deviations or depth distortion in FTSG in partial arches, compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand, were included. In FTSG, two surgical approaches were compared: open flap and flapless techniques, and two digital methods were assessed for surgical guide design with fiducial markers or dental surfaces. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) system. In addition, a single-arm meta-analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the angular deviation of freehand and FTSG.

RESULTS

Ten studies, published between 2018 and 2023, met the eligibility criteria. Among them, 10 studies reported angular deviations ranging from -0.32° to 4.96° for FTSG. Regarding FTSG surgical approaches, seven studies examined the open flap technique for FTSG, reporting mean angular deviations ranging from 2.03° to 4.23°, and four studies evaluated flapless FTSG, reporting angular deviations ranging from -0.32° to 3.38°. Six studies assessed the freehand surgical approach, reporting angular deviations ranging from 1.40° to 7.36°. The mean depth distortion ranged between 0.19 mm to 2.05 mm for open flap FTSG, and between 0.15 mm to 0.45 mm for flapless FTSG. For partially guided surgical guides, two studies reported angular deviations ranging from 0.59° to 3.44°. Seven studies were eligible for meta-analysis, focusing on the FTSG in open flap technique, with high heterogeneity (I (95%CI) = 92.3% (88.7%-96.4%)). In contrast, heterogeneity was low in studies comparing freehand versus FTSG in open flap techniques (I (95%CI) = 21.3% (0.0%-67.8%)), favoring the FTSG surgical approach.

CONCLUSION

In partially edentulous arches, FTSG systems exhibited less angular deviation than freehand and partially guided surgical guides. Flapless surgical approaches were associated with reduced angular deviation and depth distortion, suggesting a potential preference for the FTSG method in these procedures.

摘要

目的

本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估与部分引导式手术导板或徒手操作相比,全引导式牙支持静态手术导板(FTSG)在部分牙列缺失牙弓中的深度变形和角度偏差。

材料与方法

本研究遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,并在开放科学框架(OSF)中注册。制定的人群、干预措施、对照和结局(PICO)问题为:“在部分牙列缺失牙弓中,与部分引导式手术导板或徒手操作相比,FTSG的深度变形和角度偏差是多少?”检索策略涉及四个主要电子数据库,并于2023年11月按照既定检索策略完成了额外的手工检索。初步纳入基于标题和摘要,随后对选定研究进行详细审查,纳入评估FTSG在部分牙弓中的角度偏差或深度变形,与部分引导式手术导板或徒手操作相比的临床研究。在FTSG中,比较了两种手术方法:翻瓣术和不翻瓣技术,并评估了两种用于手术导板设计的数字方法,即使用基准标记或牙面。采用临床研究的定性分析来评估偏倚风险。根据推荐分级、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)系统评估证据的确定性。此外,进行了单臂比例荟萃分析以评估徒手操作和FTSG的角度偏差。

结果

2018年至2023年发表的10项研究符合纳入标准。其中,10项研究报告FTSG的角度偏差范围为-0.32°至4.96°。关于FTSG手术方法,7项研究检查了FTSG的翻瓣术,报告平均角度偏差范围为2.03°至4.23°,4项研究评估了不翻瓣FTSG,报告角度偏差范围为-0.32°至3.38°。6项研究评估了徒手手术方法,报告角度偏差范围为1.40°至7.36°。翻瓣FTSG的平均深度变形范围为0.19mm至2.05mm,不翻瓣FTSG的平均深度变形范围为0.15mm至至0.45mm。对于部分引导式手术导板,2项研究报告角度偏差范围为0.59°至3.44°。7项研究符合荟萃分析的条件,重点是翻瓣术技术中的FTSG,异质性较高(I(95%CI)=92.3%(88.7%-96.4%))。相比之下,在翻瓣术技术中比较徒手操作与FTSG的研究中异质性较低(I(95%CI)= =21.3%(0.0%-67.8%)),支持FTSG手术方法。

结论

在部分牙列缺失牙弓中,FTSG系统的角度偏差小于徒手操作和部分引导式手术导板。不翻瓣手术方法与角度偏差和深度变形的减少相关,表明在这些手术中可能更倾向于FTSG方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验