O形环和条形卡环:义齿覆盖修复体固位的比较分析 - 系统性综述。

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2727Araujo08
B L P Araujo, J D C Tardelli, C A S Celles, A C Dos Reis
{"title":"O形环和条形卡环:义齿覆盖修复体固位的比较分析 - 系统性综述。","authors":"B L P Araujo, J D C Tardelli, C A S Celles, A C Dos Reis","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2727Araujo08","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mandibular implant-supported overdentures (IODs) show higher retention than conventional complete dentures. However, there is no consensus on the best attachment to ensure resistance to vertical displacement. The most used are o-ring and bar-clip. This systematic review answered \"Which type of attachment for overdenture prosthesis provides higher retention: o-ring or bar-clip?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The search was applied to 5 databases and grey literature. The selection process occurred in two blinded steps by the reviewers following the eligibility criteria: a randomized clinical trial comparing retention between o-ring and bar-clip in IODs. The risk of bias was analyzed by RoB II.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>206 articles were found, and after removing the duplicates 136 were evaluated by title and abstract of which 24 were selected for full reading, 5 met the eligibility criteria, and all had a high risk of bias. The bar-clip provided higher retention than o-ring in four studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The bar-clip system provides a higher retention rate than the o-ring. In addition, the selection of attachment systems is dependent on the patient's anatomical-functional and economic conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"O-Ring and Bar-Clip: A Comparative Analysis of Retention in Overdenture Prostheses - A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"B L P Araujo, J D C Tardelli, C A S Celles, A C Dos Reis\",\"doi\":\"10.1922/EJPRD_2727Araujo08\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mandibular implant-supported overdentures (IODs) show higher retention than conventional complete dentures. However, there is no consensus on the best attachment to ensure resistance to vertical displacement. The most used are o-ring and bar-clip. This systematic review answered \\\"Which type of attachment for overdenture prosthesis provides higher retention: o-ring or bar-clip?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The search was applied to 5 databases and grey literature. The selection process occurred in two blinded steps by the reviewers following the eligibility criteria: a randomized clinical trial comparing retention between o-ring and bar-clip in IODs. The risk of bias was analyzed by RoB II.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>206 articles were found, and after removing the duplicates 136 were evaluated by title and abstract of which 24 were selected for full reading, 5 met the eligibility criteria, and all had a high risk of bias. The bar-clip provided higher retention than o-ring in four studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The bar-clip system provides a higher retention rate than the o-ring. In addition, the selection of attachment systems is dependent on the patient's anatomical-functional and economic conditions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2727Araujo08\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2727Araujo08","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:与传统的全口义齿相比,下颌种植体支持覆盖义齿(IOD)具有更高的固位力。然而,对于确保抗垂直位移的最佳连接方式还没有达成共识。使用最多的是 O 形环和条形卡环。本系统综述回答了 "O形环和条形夹哪种义齿连接体的固位效果更好?遵循系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA),并在国际系统综述前瞻性注册中心(PROSPERO)注册。检索范围包括 5 个数据库和灰色文献。筛选过程由审稿人按照资格标准分两步进行:比较 IOD 中 O 形环和条形夹保留率的随机临床试验。结果:共找到 206 篇文章,去除重复文章后,根据标题和摘要对 136 篇文章进行了评估,其中 24 篇被选中进行全文阅读,5 篇符合资格标准,所有文章的偏倚风险都很高。在四项研究中,条形夹的留置率高于O形环:结论:条形夹系统的固定率高于 O 形环。结论:条形夹系统的固定率高于 O 形环。此外,固定系统的选择取决于患者的解剖功能和经济条件。
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
O-Ring and Bar-Clip: A Comparative Analysis of Retention in Overdenture Prostheses - A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Mandibular implant-supported overdentures (IODs) show higher retention than conventional complete dentures. However, there is no consensus on the best attachment to ensure resistance to vertical displacement. The most used are o-ring and bar-clip. This systematic review answered "Which type of attachment for overdenture prosthesis provides higher retention: o-ring or bar-clip?

Methods: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). The search was applied to 5 databases and grey literature. The selection process occurred in two blinded steps by the reviewers following the eligibility criteria: a randomized clinical trial comparing retention between o-ring and bar-clip in IODs. The risk of bias was analyzed by RoB II.

Results: 206 articles were found, and after removing the duplicates 136 were evaluated by title and abstract of which 24 were selected for full reading, 5 met the eligibility criteria, and all had a high risk of bias. The bar-clip provided higher retention than o-ring in four studies.

Conclusions: The bar-clip system provides a higher retention rate than the o-ring. In addition, the selection of attachment systems is dependent on the patient's anatomical-functional and economic conditions.

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
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.
期刊最新文献
Effect of Repeated Firings on Color Stability of Zirconia- Reinforced Lithium Silicate and Lithium Disilicate Ceramics. Success and Survival of Composite Resin Restorations for the Management of Localized Anterior Tooth Wear: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Tensile Bond Strength, Fit Accuracy and Failure Types of Zirconia and Cast Gold Root Copings for Overdentures. Clinical Performance of 3D Printed Resin Composite Posterior Fixed Dental Prosthesis: A Permanent Solution? Letter to the Editor.
×
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