利用血液衍生产品引导关节周围手术中的组织再生:系统回顾与荟萃分析

Gabriele Baniulyte, Lorna Burns, K. Ali
{"title":"利用血液衍生产品引导关节周围手术中的组织再生:系统回顾与荟萃分析","authors":"Gabriele Baniulyte, Lorna Burns, K. Ali","doi":"10.12688/materialsopenres.17666.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Since 1982, guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has become increasingly popular. The recent progress in GTR research focuses on the application of blood-derived products. However, no comprehensive systematic review has been conducted to assess its effectiveness specifically in periradicular surgery. Therefore, the aim of this review was to analyse the outcomes of root-end surgery compared to periapical surgery incorporating GTR using blood-derived products. Methods This review involved randomised controlled trials exploring the comparison between GTR utilising blood-derived products and the conventional periapical surgery. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched, with the most recent search conducted on December 16th, 2022. Additionally, reference lists of similar systematic reviews were examined, while international trials registries and repositories were consulted for unpublished studies. Two blinded independent reviewers carried out the screening and the included studies underwent critical appraisal. The findings are reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results A total of 261 publications were initially reviewed based on their title and abstract, resulting in seventeen studies that underwent full-text screening. At this stage, 14 studies were excluded, leaving three randomised controlled trials to be included. These trials involved a combined total of 85 patients. A meta-analysis was conducted for the outcome of healing. The overall treatment effect was 0.78 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.34), indicating a preference towards the control group. Conclusion Based on a meta-analysis of three studies, there was no statistically significant distinction observed in terms of healing between the GTR involving blood-derived products and standard procedure groups. However, critical appraisal revealed indirectness and imprecision, resulting in a certainty rating of 'low'. Thus, additional robust evidence is necessary to support the utilisation of blood-derived products in GTR techniques to enhance periradicular surgery outcomes. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42020222663.","PeriodicalId":506868,"journal":{"name":"Materials Open Research","volume":"5 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilising blood-derived products for guided tissue regeneration in periradicular surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Gabriele Baniulyte, Lorna Burns, K. Ali\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/materialsopenres.17666.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Since 1982, guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has become increasingly popular. The recent progress in GTR research focuses on the application of blood-derived products. However, no comprehensive systematic review has been conducted to assess its effectiveness specifically in periradicular surgery. Therefore, the aim of this review was to analyse the outcomes of root-end surgery compared to periapical surgery incorporating GTR using blood-derived products. Methods This review involved randomised controlled trials exploring the comparison between GTR utilising blood-derived products and the conventional periapical surgery. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched, with the most recent search conducted on December 16th, 2022. Additionally, reference lists of similar systematic reviews were examined, while international trials registries and repositories were consulted for unpublished studies. Two blinded independent reviewers carried out the screening and the included studies underwent critical appraisal. The findings are reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results A total of 261 publications were initially reviewed based on their title and abstract, resulting in seventeen studies that underwent full-text screening. At this stage, 14 studies were excluded, leaving three randomised controlled trials to be included. These trials involved a combined total of 85 patients. A meta-analysis was conducted for the outcome of healing. The overall treatment effect was 0.78 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.34), indicating a preference towards the control group. Conclusion Based on a meta-analysis of three studies, there was no statistically significant distinction observed in terms of healing between the GTR involving blood-derived products and standard procedure groups. However, critical appraisal revealed indirectness and imprecision, resulting in a certainty rating of 'low'. Thus, additional robust evidence is necessary to support the utilisation of blood-derived products in GTR techniques to enhance periradicular surgery outcomes. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42020222663.\",\"PeriodicalId\":506868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Materials Open Research\",\"volume\":\"5 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Materials Open Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/materialsopenres.17666.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Materials Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/materialsopenres.17666.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景自 1982 年以来,引导组织再生(GTR)越来越受到人们的关注。引导组织再生研究的最新进展主要集中在血液衍生产品的应用上。然而,目前还没有全面的系统性综述专门评估其在根周手术中的有效性。因此,本综述旨在分析根端手术与使用血源性产品的 GTR 根尖周手术的疗效比较。方法 本综述涉及随机对照试验,探讨了使用血源性产品的 GTR 与传统根尖周手术之间的比较。检索了 Embase、MEDLINE、Cochrane CENTRAL 和 Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source 等数据库,最近一次检索于 2022 年 12 月 16 日进行。此外,还研究了类似系统综述的参考文献列表,并查阅了国际试验登记册和资料库,以了解未发表的研究。两位盲人独立审稿人进行了筛选,并对纳入的研究进行了批判性评估。研究结果按照 PRISMA 指南进行报告。结果 根据标题和摘要对 261 篇出版物进行了初步审查,最终有 17 篇研究进行了全文筛选。在此阶段,有 14 项研究被排除在外,剩下三项随机对照试验被纳入其中。这些试验共涉及 85 名患者。针对痊愈结果进行了荟萃分析。总体治疗效果为 0.78(95% CI 0.18 至 3.34),表明对照组更受青睐。结论 根据对三项研究的荟萃分析,在愈合方面,使用血源性产品的 GTR 组和标准手术组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异。然而,批判性评估显示存在间接性和不精确性,因此确定性评级为 "低"。因此,需要更多可靠的证据来支持在 GTR 技术中使用血液萃取产品来提高根周手术的效果。系统综述注册号:PROSPERO CRD42020222663。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Utilising blood-derived products for guided tissue regeneration in periradicular surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background Since 1982, guided tissue regeneration (GTR) has become increasingly popular. The recent progress in GTR research focuses on the application of blood-derived products. However, no comprehensive systematic review has been conducted to assess its effectiveness specifically in periradicular surgery. Therefore, the aim of this review was to analyse the outcomes of root-end surgery compared to periapical surgery incorporating GTR using blood-derived products. Methods This review involved randomised controlled trials exploring the comparison between GTR utilising blood-derived products and the conventional periapical surgery. The databases Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source were searched, with the most recent search conducted on December 16th, 2022. Additionally, reference lists of similar systematic reviews were examined, while international trials registries and repositories were consulted for unpublished studies. Two blinded independent reviewers carried out the screening and the included studies underwent critical appraisal. The findings are reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Results A total of 261 publications were initially reviewed based on their title and abstract, resulting in seventeen studies that underwent full-text screening. At this stage, 14 studies were excluded, leaving three randomised controlled trials to be included. These trials involved a combined total of 85 patients. A meta-analysis was conducted for the outcome of healing. The overall treatment effect was 0.78 (95% CI 0.18 to 3.34), indicating a preference towards the control group. Conclusion Based on a meta-analysis of three studies, there was no statistically significant distinction observed in terms of healing between the GTR involving blood-derived products and standard procedure groups. However, critical appraisal revealed indirectness and imprecision, resulting in a certainty rating of 'low'. Thus, additional robust evidence is necessary to support the utilisation of blood-derived products in GTR techniques to enhance periradicular surgery outcomes. Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42020222663.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Banana crop by-products in the Canary Islands in a biorefinery’s context A progressive overview of the mainstream additive manufacturing of ceramic components for industrial advancement Analysis of the melting process of carbon-bearing pellets in iron bath, slag bath and graphite crucible Plant fiber-reinforced green composite: A review on surface modification, properties, fabrications and applications Deposition of Sn-Zr-Se precursor by thermal evaporation and PLD for the synthesis of SnZrSe3 thin films
×
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:481959085
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