内连接与外连接治疗单个、部分或全部牙种植体康复的有效性比较:综述

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of International Oral Health Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.4103/jioh.jioh_237_22
José Viteri-Ruiz, J. Parise-Vasco, C. Montesinos-Guevara
{"title":"内连接与外连接治疗单个、部分或全部牙种植体康复的有效性比较:综述","authors":"José Viteri-Ruiz, J. Parise-Vasco, C. Montesinos-Guevara","doi":"10.4103/jioh.jioh_237_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: Dental implants have been shown to be a safe alternative for the replacement of missing teeth since they present few complications. These are related, among other elements, to the type of connection with which the abutments and attachments are joined to the implant. For this reason, in this study we performed an overview of systematic reviews with FRISBEE methodology on the use of internal connections compared to external connections of dental implants for the treatment of single, partial, or total rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic search in the Epistemonikos database. We extracted data from the included systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, and generated a summary of findings table. We used RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro for data analysis and data presentation. Eleven systematic reviews were included after full-text screening, which had thirty-three clinical trials. Results: The outcomes were analyzed: mechanical complication (RR: 0.64), biological complications (RR: 1.01), survival (RR: 0.99), and mean marginal bone loss (MD: 0.3 mm lower). Conclusion: The use of internal connections in dental implants could lead to less marginal bone loss and fewer mechanical complications than implants with external connections, however, the confidence in the effect is limited due to a low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. Additionally, results show that different implant connections do not have an impact on dental implant survival and biological complication rates, with a moderate and low certainty of evidence, respectively.","PeriodicalId":16138,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Oral Health","volume":"15 1","pages":"226 - 236"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of internal connections compared with external connections for the treatment of single, partial, or total dental implants rehabilitation: Overview of reviews\",\"authors\":\"José Viteri-Ruiz, J. Parise-Vasco, C. Montesinos-Guevara\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jioh.jioh_237_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: Dental implants have been shown to be a safe alternative for the replacement of missing teeth since they present few complications. These are related, among other elements, to the type of connection with which the abutments and attachments are joined to the implant. For this reason, in this study we performed an overview of systematic reviews with FRISBEE methodology on the use of internal connections compared to external connections of dental implants for the treatment of single, partial, or total rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic search in the Epistemonikos database. We extracted data from the included systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, and generated a summary of findings table. We used RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro for data analysis and data presentation. Eleven systematic reviews were included after full-text screening, which had thirty-three clinical trials. Results: The outcomes were analyzed: mechanical complication (RR: 0.64), biological complications (RR: 1.01), survival (RR: 0.99), and mean marginal bone loss (MD: 0.3 mm lower). Conclusion: The use of internal connections in dental implants could lead to less marginal bone loss and fewer mechanical complications than implants with external connections, however, the confidence in the effect is limited due to a low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. Additionally, results show that different implant connections do not have an impact on dental implant survival and biological complication rates, with a moderate and low certainty of evidence, respectively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Oral Health\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"226 - 236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Oral Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_237_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Oral Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jioh.jioh_237_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:牙种植体已被证明是一种安全的替代缺失的牙齿,因为他们提出很少的并发症。除其他因素外,这些因素与基台和附着物与种植体连接的连接类型有关。因此,在本研究中,我们采用FRISBEE方法对内连接与外连接牙种植体在单一、部分或全部康复治疗中的应用进行了系统综述。材料和方法:我们在Epistemonikos数据库中进行了系统的检索。我们从纳入的系统综述中提取数据,重新分析原始研究的数据,并生成结果摘要表。我们使用RevMan 5.3和GRADEpro进行数据分析和数据呈现。全文筛选后纳入11篇系统综述,共33项临床试验。结果:对结果进行分析:机械并发症(RR: 0.64)、生物学并发症(RR: 1.01)、生存(RR: 0.99)、平均边缘骨质流失(MD:低0.3 mm)。结论:与外连接种植体相比,使用内连接种植体可导致更少的边缘骨丢失和机械并发症,但由于两种结果的证据确定性较低,因此对其效果的信心有限。此外,结果表明,不同的种植体连接对种植体存活和生物并发症发生率没有影响,证据的确定性分别为中等和低。
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
Effectiveness of internal connections compared with external connections for the treatment of single, partial, or total dental implants rehabilitation: Overview of reviews
Aim: Dental implants have been shown to be a safe alternative for the replacement of missing teeth since they present few complications. These are related, among other elements, to the type of connection with which the abutments and attachments are joined to the implant. For this reason, in this study we performed an overview of systematic reviews with FRISBEE methodology on the use of internal connections compared to external connections of dental implants for the treatment of single, partial, or total rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic search in the Epistemonikos database. We extracted data from the included systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, and generated a summary of findings table. We used RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro for data analysis and data presentation. Eleven systematic reviews were included after full-text screening, which had thirty-three clinical trials. Results: The outcomes were analyzed: mechanical complication (RR: 0.64), biological complications (RR: 1.01), survival (RR: 0.99), and mean marginal bone loss (MD: 0.3 mm lower). Conclusion: The use of internal connections in dental implants could lead to less marginal bone loss and fewer mechanical complications than implants with external connections, however, the confidence in the effect is limited due to a low certainty of evidence for both outcomes. Additionally, results show that different implant connections do not have an impact on dental implant survival and biological complication rates, with a moderate and low certainty of evidence, respectively.
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
Journal of International Oral Health
Journal of International Oral Health Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
14.30%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: It is a journal aimed for research, scientific facts and details covering all specialties of dentistry with a good determination for exploring and sharing the knowledge in the medical and dental fraternity. The scope is therefore huge covering almost all streams of dentistry - starting from original studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, very unique case reports. Our journal appreciates research articles pertaining with advancement of dentistry. Journal scope is not limited to these subjects and is more wider covering all specialities of dentistry follows: Preventive and Community Dentistry (Dental Public Health) Endodontics Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (also called Oral Surgery) Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics Periodontology (also called Periodontics) Pediatric Dentistry (also called Pedodontics) Prosthodontics (also called Prosthetic Dentistry) Oral Medicine Special Needs Dentistry (also called Special Care Dentistry) Oral Biology Forensic Odontology Geriatric Dentistry or Geriodontics Implantology Laser and Aesthetic Dentistry.
期刊最新文献
Safety of E-cigarettes and its effectiveness in smoking cessation: A systematic review Comparative estimation of C-terminal cross-linked telopeptide of type I collagen levels in gingival crevicular fluid in diabetic and nondiabetic patients with chronic periodontitis: A prospective clinical study Tooth movement in immune system: A narrative review Association between parental migration and dental caries of 3-12-year-old children in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis Palatogingival groove: Prevalence, characteristics and implications in a cross-sectional study in Rio de Janeiro-Brazil
×
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