Success rates comparison of endodontic microsurgery and single implants with comprehensive and explicit criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.5 Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-19 DOI:10.5395/rde.2025.50.e8
Min Jung Ko, Ju Hyun Park, Na Rae Lee, Joon-Ho Yoon, Young-Taek Kim, Sin-Yeon Cho
{"title":"Success rates comparison of endodontic microsurgery and single implants with comprehensive and explicit criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Min Jung Ko, Ju Hyun Park, Na Rae Lee, Joon-Ho Yoon, Young-Taek Kim, Sin-Yeon Cho","doi":"10.5395/rde.2025.50.e8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>While the success criteria of endodontic microsurgery (EMS) have been consistently defined and widely accepted, the success criteria of dental implants are outdated and focus only on the implant fixture and surrounding bone. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of EMS and single implants (SIs) with explicit criteria.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched for articles published from January 2010 to February 2022 and discussed them and consulted with a clinical advisory committee composed of four dental specialists and one epidemiologist during article selection and data extraction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-two EMS studies and six SI studies were included in the meta-analysis. Teeth treated using EMS had a pooled success rate of 89% (90% at <5-year follow-up and 80% at ≥5-year follow-up) and the pooled success rate of SI was 78%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The success rates of the two procedures with similar follow-up periods were comparable. Subgroup analysis found no other variable that significantly influenced study heterogeneity. Considering the treatment sequence and the similar success rates, it would be advantageous to consider EMS, rather than implants, first in a situation where both procedures are applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":21102,"journal":{"name":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","volume":" ","pages":"e8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11921458/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2025.50.e8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: While the success criteria of endodontic microsurgery (EMS) have been consistently defined and widely accepted, the success criteria of dental implants are outdated and focus only on the implant fixture and surrounding bone. This study aimed to evaluate the outcomes of EMS and single implants (SIs) with explicit criteria.

Methods: We searched for articles published from January 2010 to February 2022 and discussed them and consulted with a clinical advisory committee composed of four dental specialists and one epidemiologist during article selection and data extraction.

Results: Twenty-two EMS studies and six SI studies were included in the meta-analysis. Teeth treated using EMS had a pooled success rate of 89% (90% at <5-year follow-up and 80% at ≥5-year follow-up) and the pooled success rate of SI was 78%.

Conclusions: The success rates of the two procedures with similar follow-up periods were comparable. Subgroup analysis found no other variable that significantly influenced study heterogeneity. Considering the treatment sequence and the similar success rates, it would be advantageous to consider EMS, rather than implants, first in a situation where both procedures are applicable.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合明确标准的根管显微手术和单种植成功率比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:虽然牙髓显微手术(endodontic microsurgery, EMS)的成功标准已经被一致定义并被广泛接受,但牙种植体的成功标准已经过时,只关注种植体固定物和周围骨。本研究旨在用明确的标准评估EMS和单种植体(si)的结果。方法:检索2010年1月至2022年2月发表的文章,在文章选择和数据提取过程中,与由4名牙科专家和1名流行病学家组成的临床咨询委员会进行讨论和咨询。结果:22项EMS研究和6项SI研究被纳入meta分析。使用EMS治疗的牙齿的总成功率为89%(结论:两种方法的成功率具有可比性,随访时间相似。亚组分析未发现其他显著影响研究异质性的变量。考虑到治疗顺序和相似的成功率,在两种方法都适用的情况下,首先考虑EMS而不是种植体是有利的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Neuropeptide Y regulation of dental pulp neurogenic inflammation provoked by tooth bleaching agents: a descriptive comparative clinical study. Biological mechanisms underlying the inflammatory radicular cyst formation-focus on epithelial proliferation: a systematic review of experimental cell and tissue models. Comparative evaluation of dentinal tubule occlusion by desensitizing agents after tooth bleaching: an in vitro study. Influence of adjacent restorative material and distance on the accuracy of inlay cavity impressions with intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. Analysis of the reciprocating kinematics of the VDW Silver Reciproc, E-Connect Pro, Ecom, and Endopen endodontic motors: an in vitro experimental study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1