种植牙康复对颌面部重建患者生活质量的影响:系统性综述。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w
Simra Azher, Roisin McGrath, Yasaman Mohammadi Kamalabadi, Georgios Tsakos, Felix Sim, Ankur Singh
{"title":"种植牙康复对颌面部重建患者生活质量的影响:系统性综述。","authors":"Simra Azher, Roisin McGrath, Yasaman Mohammadi Kamalabadi, Georgios Tsakos, Felix Sim, Ankur Singh","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Maxillofacial reconstruction with dental implants in microvascular tissue flaps aims to improve mastication. However, the quality of life (QoL) impact of this intervention is yet to be determined. This systematic review assessed the QoL impact of maxillofacial reconstruction with implant-supported teeth compared to no dental rehabilitation, removable dentures, and obturator (modified denture). Additionally, we examined instruments applied to measure QoL in maxillofacial reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases Ovid Medline and Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Handle on QoL were searched. Cohort, case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were narratively synthesized for QoL captured through validated instruments. Study methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized studies of Exposure. Instruments underwent COSMIN content validity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a total of 2735 studies screened, the three included studies (two cohort and one RCT) showed improved QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction compared to obturator and no dental rehabilitation. However, these studies have high risk of bias due to confounding. None of the instruments achieved a sufficient relevance rating for maxillofacial reconstruction, having been designed for other target populations and there is no evidence on their content validity for this population, but the EORTC QLQ30 H&N35 satisfied more COSMIN criteria than the UW-QOL and OHIP-14.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although studies showed favourable QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction involving dental implants, these have high risk of bias and further studies are needed to establish the impact. Existing QoL instruments lack content validity and tailored instruments are needed for QoL evaluation in maxillofacial reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of rehabilitation with dental implants on the quality of life of patients undergoing maxillofacial reconstruction: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Simra Azher, Roisin McGrath, Yasaman Mohammadi Kamalabadi, Georgios Tsakos, Felix Sim, Ankur Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Maxillofacial reconstruction with dental implants in microvascular tissue flaps aims to improve mastication. However, the quality of life (QoL) impact of this intervention is yet to be determined. This systematic review assessed the QoL impact of maxillofacial reconstruction with implant-supported teeth compared to no dental rehabilitation, removable dentures, and obturator (modified denture). Additionally, we examined instruments applied to measure QoL in maxillofacial reconstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases Ovid Medline and Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Handle on QoL were searched. Cohort, case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were narratively synthesized for QoL captured through validated instruments. Study methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized studies of Exposure. Instruments underwent COSMIN content validity analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of a total of 2735 studies screened, the three included studies (two cohort and one RCT) showed improved QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction compared to obturator and no dental rehabilitation. However, these studies have high risk of bias due to confounding. None of the instruments achieved a sufficient relevance rating for maxillofacial reconstruction, having been designed for other target populations and there is no evidence on their content validity for this population, but the EORTC QLQ30 H&N35 satisfied more COSMIN criteria than the UW-QOL and OHIP-14.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although studies showed favourable QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction involving dental implants, these have high risk of bias and further studies are needed to establish the impact. Existing QoL instruments lack content validity and tailored instruments are needed for QoL evaluation in maxillofacial reconstruction.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03795-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在微血管组织瓣内植入牙科植入物进行颌面部重建的目的是改善咀嚼功能。然而,这种干预措施对生活质量(QoL)的影响尚未确定。本系统性综述评估了使用种植体支持的牙齿进行颌面重建与不进行牙齿修复、活动假牙和义齿(改良义齿)相比对生活质量的影响。此外,我们还研究了用于测量颌面部重建QoL的工具:方法:检索了 Ovid Medline 和 Embase、Scopus、Web of Science 和 Handle 等数据库中有关 QoL 的内容。对队列、病例对照和随机对照试验(RCT)进行了叙述性综合,以了解通过有效工具获得的 QoL。使用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 和 Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Exposure 对研究方法质量进行了评估。对工具进行了 COSMIN 内容有效性分析:在总共筛选出的2735项研究中,纳入的三项研究(两项队列研究和一项RCT研究)显示,颌面部重建与闭锁器和无牙科康复相比改善了QoL。然而,由于混杂因素,这些研究存在较高的偏倚风险。由于这些工具是为其他目标人群设计的,因此没有一个工具达到了与颌面部重建充分相关的评级,也没有证据表明其内容对这一人群有效,但 EORTC QLQ30 H&N35 比 UW-QOL 和 OHIP-14 更符合 COSMIN 标准:结论:尽管研究显示颌面部重建涉及牙科植入物时的 QoL 较好,但这些研究存在较高的偏倚风险,需要进一步研究以确定其影响。现有的 QoL 工具缺乏内容有效性,因此需要为颌面重建的 QoL 评估量身定制工具。
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
Impact of rehabilitation with dental implants on the quality of life of patients undergoing maxillofacial reconstruction: a systematic review.

Purpose: Maxillofacial reconstruction with dental implants in microvascular tissue flaps aims to improve mastication. However, the quality of life (QoL) impact of this intervention is yet to be determined. This systematic review assessed the QoL impact of maxillofacial reconstruction with implant-supported teeth compared to no dental rehabilitation, removable dentures, and obturator (modified denture). Additionally, we examined instruments applied to measure QoL in maxillofacial reconstruction.

Methods: Databases Ovid Medline and Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Handle on QoL were searched. Cohort, case-control and randomized controlled trials (RCT) were narratively synthesized for QoL captured through validated instruments. Study methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Non-randomized studies of Exposure. Instruments underwent COSMIN content validity analysis.

Results: Of a total of 2735 studies screened, the three included studies (two cohort and one RCT) showed improved QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction compared to obturator and no dental rehabilitation. However, these studies have high risk of bias due to confounding. None of the instruments achieved a sufficient relevance rating for maxillofacial reconstruction, having been designed for other target populations and there is no evidence on their content validity for this population, but the EORTC QLQ30 H&N35 satisfied more COSMIN criteria than the UW-QOL and OHIP-14.

Conclusion: Although studies showed favourable QoL with maxillofacial reconstruction involving dental implants, these have high risk of bias and further studies are needed to establish the impact. Existing QoL instruments lack content validity and tailored instruments are needed for QoL evaluation in maxillofacial reconstruction.

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
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Health-related quality of life due to malaria: a systematic review. Identification of meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening on the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®). Symptom prevalence in patients with advanced heart failure and its association with quality of life and activities of daily living. Longitudinal validation of the PROMIS-16 in a sample of adults in the United States with back pain. Norwegian and Swedish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.
×
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