Stefano Oliva, Mario Capogreco, Giovanna Murmura, Ettore Lupi, Di Carlo Mariachiara, Maurizio D'Amario
{"title":"套窝保护技术及其并发症,种植体存活率和临床结果:系统回顾。","authors":"Stefano Oliva, Mario Capogreco, Giovanna Murmura, Ettore Lupi, Di Carlo Mariachiara, Maurizio D'Amario","doi":"10.5051/jpis.2201780089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the socket shield technique (SST), an innovative surgical method introduced in 2010, for reducing buccal bone plate resorption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies conducted in humans and investigating the SST were searched on PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar in November and December 2021. The implant survival rate, percentage of complications, and clinical parameters (marginal bone loss [MBL], pink esthetic score [PES], and buccal bone plate resorption [BBPR]) were analyzed using the collected data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search resulted in 132 articles. After article screening, the full texts of 19 studies were read and 17 articles were finally included in the review. In total, 656 implants were installed with the SST. Nine of the 656 implants experienced failure, resulting in an implant survival rate of 98.6%. The percentage of complications was about 3.81%. The analysis of clinical parameters (MBL, PES, and BBPR), showed favorable results for the SST. The mean MBL in implants placed with the SST was 0.39±0.28 mm versus 1.00±0.55 mm in those placed without the SST. PES had a better outcome in the SST group, with an average of 12.08±1.18 versus 10.77±0.74. BBPR had more favorable results in implants placed with the SST (0.32±0.10 mm) than in implants placed with the standard technique (1.05±0.18 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The SST could be considered beneficial for preserving the buccal bone plate. However, since only 7 of the included studies were long-term randomized controlled trials comparing the SST with the standard implant placement technique, the conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020180637.</p>","PeriodicalId":48795,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science","volume":"53 2","pages":"99-109"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/8e/jpis-53-99.PMC10133821.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The socket shield technique and its complications, implant survival rate, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Stefano Oliva, Mario Capogreco, Giovanna Murmura, Ettore Lupi, Di Carlo Mariachiara, Maurizio D'Amario\",\"doi\":\"10.5051/jpis.2201780089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the socket shield technique (SST), an innovative surgical method introduced in 2010, for reducing buccal bone plate resorption.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies conducted in humans and investigating the SST were searched on PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar in November and December 2021. The implant survival rate, percentage of complications, and clinical parameters (marginal bone loss [MBL], pink esthetic score [PES], and buccal bone plate resorption [BBPR]) were analyzed using the collected data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The initial search resulted in 132 articles. After article screening, the full texts of 19 studies were read and 17 articles were finally included in the review. In total, 656 implants were installed with the SST. Nine of the 656 implants experienced failure, resulting in an implant survival rate of 98.6%. The percentage of complications was about 3.81%. The analysis of clinical parameters (MBL, PES, and BBPR), showed favorable results for the SST. The mean MBL in implants placed with the SST was 0.39±0.28 mm versus 1.00±0.55 mm in those placed without the SST. PES had a better outcome in the SST group, with an average of 12.08±1.18 versus 10.77±0.74. BBPR had more favorable results in implants placed with the SST (0.32±0.10 mm) than in implants placed with the standard technique (1.05±0.18 mm).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The SST could be considered beneficial for preserving the buccal bone plate. However, since only 7 of the included studies were long-term randomized controlled trials comparing the SST with the standard implant placement technique, the conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42020180637.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science\",\"volume\":\"53 2\",\"pages\":\"99-109\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/73/8e/jpis-53-99.PMC10133821.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2201780089\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2201780089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的:本系统综述的目的是评估窝盾技术(SST)的有效性,这是2010年引入的一种创新的手术方法,用于减少颊骨板吸收。方法:按照PRISMA指南进行综述。在2021年11月和12月,在PubMed (MEDLINE)、Embase、Web of Knowledge和Google Scholar上检索了在人类中进行的临床研究和调查SST。根据收集的数据分析种植体存活率、并发症发生率、临床参数(边缘骨丢失[MBL]、粉红色美观评分[PES]、颊骨板吸收[BBPR])。结果:最初的搜索结果为132篇。经过文章筛选,我们阅读了19篇研究的全文,最终纳入了17篇文章。总共有656个种植体安装了SST。656个种植体中有9个失败,导致种植体存活率为98.6%。并发症发生率约为3.81%。临床参数分析(MBL, PES和BBPR)显示SST的良好结果。有SST的种植体平均MBL为0.39±0.28 mm,而没有SST的种植体平均MBL为1.00±0.55 mm。PES在SST组有更好的结果,平均12.08±1.18比10.77±0.74。使用SST放置的种植体(0.32±0.10 mm)比使用标准技术放置的种植体(1.05±0.18 mm)具有更好的效果。结论:SST对保存颊骨板是有益的。然而,由于纳入的研究中只有7项是比较SST与标准种植体放置技术的长期随机对照试验,因此从本系统综述中得出的结论应谨慎解读。试验注册:PROSPERO标识符:CRD42020180637。
The socket shield technique and its complications, implant survival rate, and clinical outcomes: a systematic review.
Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of the socket shield technique (SST), an innovative surgical method introduced in 2010, for reducing buccal bone plate resorption.
Methods: The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies conducted in humans and investigating the SST were searched on PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Web of Knowledge, and Google Scholar in November and December 2021. The implant survival rate, percentage of complications, and clinical parameters (marginal bone loss [MBL], pink esthetic score [PES], and buccal bone plate resorption [BBPR]) were analyzed using the collected data.
Results: The initial search resulted in 132 articles. After article screening, the full texts of 19 studies were read and 17 articles were finally included in the review. In total, 656 implants were installed with the SST. Nine of the 656 implants experienced failure, resulting in an implant survival rate of 98.6%. The percentage of complications was about 3.81%. The analysis of clinical parameters (MBL, PES, and BBPR), showed favorable results for the SST. The mean MBL in implants placed with the SST was 0.39±0.28 mm versus 1.00±0.55 mm in those placed without the SST. PES had a better outcome in the SST group, with an average of 12.08±1.18 versus 10.77±0.74. BBPR had more favorable results in implants placed with the SST (0.32±0.10 mm) than in implants placed with the standard technique (1.05±0.18 mm).
Conclusions: The SST could be considered beneficial for preserving the buccal bone plate. However, since only 7 of the included studies were long-term randomized controlled trials comparing the SST with the standard implant placement technique, the conclusions drawn from this systematic review should be interpreted with caution.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science (JPIS) is a peer-reviewed and open-access journal providing up-to-date information relevant to professionalism of periodontology and dental implantology. JPIS is dedicated to global and extensive publication which includes evidence-based original articles, and fundamental reviews in order to cover a variety of interests in the field of periodontal as well as implant science.