Suppr超能文献

通过骨致密化、引导骨再生和骨劈开进行骨嵴扩张的水平骨嵴增量术:临床试验的系统评价和荟萃分析

Horizontal ridge augmentation through ridge expansion via osseodensification, guided bone regeneration and ridge‑split: Systematic review and meta‑analysis of clinical trials.

作者信息

Vorovenci Andrei, Drafta Sergiu, Petre Alexandru

机构信息

Faculty of Dental Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 050051 Bucharest, Romania.

Prosthodontics Department, Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, 20102 Bucharest, Romania.

出版信息

Biomed Rep. 2024 Jul 31;21(4):139. doi: 10.3892/br.2024.1827. eCollection 2024 Oct.

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review was to compare three ridge augmentation procedures in order to assist clinicians in finding the ideal surgical method relative to the horizontal bone gain needed and the width of the alveolar ridge available. An electronic and hand literature search was performed in the online databases PubMed-Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register and Web of Science, and various specialized journals, between January 2017 and December 2022. The included studies were evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies score and Cochrane's RoB tool. The primary variable studied in the meta-analysis was the final bone gain. The implant survival rate and initial ridge width were the secondary variables. Then four studies on ridge expansion via osseodensification (OD), seven on guided bone regeneration (GBR) and seven on the ridge-split technique (RS) were included in the review; 17 out of 18 were selected for meta-analysis. The mean horizontal bone gain for OD was 2.151 mm [1.327-2.975 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI)], for GBR was 4.036 mm (3.351-4.772 mm 95%CI) and for RS was 3.661 mm (2.991-4.399 mm 95%CI). The results were statistically significant (P=0.002). GBR reported the most bone gain horizontally, followed closely by RS and then OD. OD is a recent technique that should be taken into account when discussing the protocols of horizontally atrophied ridge rehabilitation.

摘要

本系统评价的目的是比较三种牙槽嵴增量手术,以帮助临床医生找到相对于所需水平骨增量和可用牙槽嵴宽度的理想手术方法。在2017年1月至2022年12月期间,对在线数据库PubMed-Medline、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、EMBASE、Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库和科学网以及各种专业期刊进行了电子和手工文献检索。使用非随机研究方法学指数评分和Cochrane偏倚风险工具对纳入的研究进行评估。荟萃分析中研究的主要变量是最终骨增量。种植体存活率和初始嵴宽度为次要变量。然后,本评价纳入了四项关于骨致密化(OD)牙槽嵴扩展的研究、七项引导骨再生(GBR)的研究和七项牙槽嵴劈开技术(RS)的研究;18项研究中有17项被选入荟萃分析。OD组的平均水平骨增量为2.151mm[1.327-2.975mm;95%置信区间(CI)],GBR组为4.036mm(3.351-4.772mm 95%CI),RS组为3.661mm(2.991-4.399mm 95%CI)。结果具有统计学意义(P=0.002)。GBR在水平方向上骨增量最多,其次是RS,然后是OD。OD是一种最新技术,在讨论水平萎缩性牙槽嵴修复方案时应予以考虑。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/a997/11332117/09f1a59cf3c6/br-21-04-01827-g00.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验