A. Amiri, Babak Naziri, A. Azizi, Saeedeh Mehraban, J. Butze
{"title":"即刻种植体放置后种植体周围软硬组织的临床结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"A. Amiri, Babak Naziri, A. Azizi, Saeedeh Mehraban, J. Butze","doi":"10.46903/gjms/20.01.1091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the most important challenges in dental implant placement is supporting and preserving soft tissue and bone structures. Numerous studies on fixation of soft and hard tissues at the single or double teeth site have reported immediate placement using a flapless protocol, while many studies have reported fewer results in molar extraction solutions. The current study aims to determine the clinical outcome of peri-implant soft and hard tissues following immediate implant placement.\n\nMaterials & Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, from January 2021 to September 2021. In this systematic review, the search strategy was to screen electronically all relevant, authentic articles on databases of Embase, LIVIVO, EBSCO, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and PubMed, published from 2011 to September 2021. Risk ratio (RR) was determined for implant failure, and mean differences (MD) were determined for soft tissue, horizontal and vertical buccal bone resorption by 95% CI, Inverse-variance, and fixed effect model or Mantel-Haenszel method between the intervention (bone substitute material) and control (no bone substitute material) groups through Stata/MP v.16.\n\nResults: Risk ratio of implant failure was similar in intervention and control group 0.02 (RR=0.02; 95%CI=-0.04 to 0.08; p=0.49). Mean differences were statistically greater in intervention than control group for soft tissue 1.65 mm (95%CI=1.05 to 2.25; p=0.00), horizontal bone resorption -0.47 mm (95%CI=-0.77 to -0.17 mm; p=0.00) and vertical buccal bone resorption -0.14 mm (95%CI=-0.24 to -0.03 mm; p=0.01).\n\nConclusion: Our findings revealed no significant difference in implant failure between an intervention (bone substitute material) and control (no bone substitute material) groups. Mean differences were statistically greater in the intervention than the control group for soft tissue, horizontal bone resorption, and vertical buccal bone resorption. Using bone substitute material can improve long-term peri-implant soft tissue, horizontal and vertical buccal bone resorption. It is recommended to use bone-substitute material with a thin buccal plate.","PeriodicalId":44174,"journal":{"name":"Gomal Journal of Medical Sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"CLINICAL OUTCOME OF PERI-IMPLANT SOFT AND HARD TISSUES AFTER IMMEDIATE IMPLANT PLACEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS\",\"authors\":\"A. Amiri, Babak Naziri, A. Azizi, Saeedeh Mehraban, J. Butze\",\"doi\":\"10.46903/gjms/20.01.1091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: One of the most important challenges in dental implant placement is supporting and preserving soft tissue and bone structures. Numerous studies on fixation of soft and hard tissues at the single or double teeth site have reported immediate placement using a flapless protocol, while many studies have reported fewer results in molar extraction solutions. The current study aims to determine the clinical outcome of peri-implant soft and hard tissues following immediate implant placement.\\n\\nMaterials & Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, from January 2021 to September 2021. In this systematic review, the search strategy was to screen electronically all relevant, authentic articles on databases of Embase, LIVIVO, EBSCO, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and PubMed, published from 2011 to September 2021. Risk ratio (RR) was determined for implant failure, and mean differences (MD) were determined for soft tissue, horizontal and vertical buccal bone resorption by 95% CI, Inverse-variance, and fixed effect model or Mantel-Haenszel method between the intervention (bone substitute material) and control (no bone substitute material) groups through Stata/MP v.16.\\n\\nResults: Risk ratio of implant failure was similar in intervention and control group 0.02 (RR=0.02; 95%CI=-0.04 to 0.08; p=0.49). Mean differences were statistically greater in intervention than control group for soft tissue 1.65 mm (95%CI=1.05 to 2.25; p=0.00), horizontal bone resorption -0.47 mm (95%CI=-0.77 to -0.17 mm; p=0.00) and vertical buccal bone resorption -0.14 mm (95%CI=-0.24 to -0.03 mm; p=0.01).\\n\\nConclusion: Our findings revealed no significant difference in implant failure between an intervention (bone substitute material) and control (no bone substitute material) groups. Mean differences were statistically greater in the intervention than the control group for soft tissue, horizontal bone resorption, and vertical buccal bone resorption. Using bone substitute material can improve long-term peri-implant soft tissue, horizontal and vertical buccal bone resorption. It is recommended to use bone-substitute material with a thin buccal plate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gomal Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gomal Journal of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.46903/gjms/20.01.1091\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gomal Journal of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46903/gjms/20.01.1091","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:牙种植体放置中最重要的挑战之一是支持和保存软组织和骨结构。许多关于单牙或双牙部位软硬组织固定的研究报道了使用无瓣方案立即放置,而许多研究报道了使用磨牙拔牙溶液的结果较少。本研究旨在确定即刻种植体放置后种植体周围软硬组织的临床结果。材料与方法:本研究于2021年1月- 2021年9月在中国西安西安交通大学口腔学院正畸科进行。在本系统综述中,检索策略是电子筛选2011年至2021年9月在Embase、LIVIVO、EBSCO、Web of Science、LILACS、Scopus和PubMed等数据库中发表的所有相关的、真实的文章。通过Stata/MP v.16,采用95% CI、反方差、固定效应模型或Mantel-Haenszel方法确定干预组(骨替代材料组)与对照组(无骨替代材料组)软组织、水平和垂直颊骨吸收的平均差异(MD)。结果:干预组种植体失败风险比与对照组相当,RR=0.02;95%CI=-0.04 ~ 0.08;p = 0.49)。干预组软组织的平均差异大于对照组1.65 mm (95%CI=1.05 ~ 2.25;p=0.00),水平骨吸收-0.47 mm (95%CI=-0.77 ~ -0.17 mm;p=0.00),垂直颊骨吸收-0.14 mm (95%CI=-0.24 ~ -0.03 mm;p = 0.01)。结论:我们的研究结果显示,干预组(骨替代材料)和对照组(无骨替代材料)在种植体失败方面没有显著差异。在软组织、水平骨吸收和垂直颊骨吸收方面,干预组的平均差异在统计学上大于对照组。使用骨替代材料可以改善种植体周围软组织、水平和垂直颊骨的长期吸收。建议使用带薄颊板的骨替代物。
CLINICAL OUTCOME OF PERI-IMPLANT SOFT AND HARD TISSUES AFTER IMMEDIATE IMPLANT PLACEMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Background: One of the most important challenges in dental implant placement is supporting and preserving soft tissue and bone structures. Numerous studies on fixation of soft and hard tissues at the single or double teeth site have reported immediate placement using a flapless protocol, while many studies have reported fewer results in molar extraction solutions. The current study aims to determine the clinical outcome of peri-implant soft and hard tissues following immediate implant placement.
Materials & Methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, College of Stomatology, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China, from January 2021 to September 2021. In this systematic review, the search strategy was to screen electronically all relevant, authentic articles on databases of Embase, LIVIVO, EBSCO, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, and PubMed, published from 2011 to September 2021. Risk ratio (RR) was determined for implant failure, and mean differences (MD) were determined for soft tissue, horizontal and vertical buccal bone resorption by 95% CI, Inverse-variance, and fixed effect model or Mantel-Haenszel method between the intervention (bone substitute material) and control (no bone substitute material) groups through Stata/MP v.16.
Results: Risk ratio of implant failure was similar in intervention and control group 0.02 (RR=0.02; 95%CI=-0.04 to 0.08; p=0.49). Mean differences were statistically greater in intervention than control group for soft tissue 1.65 mm (95%CI=1.05 to 2.25; p=0.00), horizontal bone resorption -0.47 mm (95%CI=-0.77 to -0.17 mm; p=0.00) and vertical buccal bone resorption -0.14 mm (95%CI=-0.24 to -0.03 mm; p=0.01).
Conclusion: Our findings revealed no significant difference in implant failure between an intervention (bone substitute material) and control (no bone substitute material) groups. Mean differences were statistically greater in the intervention than the control group for soft tissue, horizontal bone resorption, and vertical buccal bone resorption. Using bone substitute material can improve long-term peri-implant soft tissue, horizontal and vertical buccal bone resorption. It is recommended to use bone-substitute material with a thin buccal plate.