The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2023
Predictability of single versus double-barrel vascularized fibula flaps and dental implants in mandibular reconstructions: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Faverani Leonardo P, Rios Barbara R, Santos Anderson Maikon de Souza, Mendes Bruno C, Santiago-Júnior Joel F, Sukotjo Cortino, Callahan Nicholas, Miloro Michael
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Patients with vascularized bone flaps from the fibula have reduced bone height, in which case a higher prosthetic abutment is needed for their implant-supported prosthesis. Although the double-flap technique seems promising, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prospective studies are lacking.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the grafted areas of single barrel fibular flaps (SBFF) and double-barrel fibular flaps (DBFF) by considering failure rates, dental implant complications, and bone union at the osteotomy sites.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) question, and the National Health and Medical Research Council scales. The event rate of complications and failures was calculated with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.
RESULTS: A total of 13 prospective studies with 441 participants and 330 graft sites were identified. A total of 235 participants had SBFF with 445 implants, and 95 had DBFF with 164 implants. The overall combined graft failure rates were 4.2% for SBFF and 3.2% for DBFF. The complication rate was 10% for SBFF and 1.9% for DBFF. Implant failure was at 4.7% in the SBFF group and 3.4% in the DBFF group.
CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates and implant failures were similar for SBFF and DBFF. Therefore, for long-term oral rehabilitation, both SBFF and DBFF are suitable procedures for mandibular reconstruction.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the grafted areas of single barrel fibular flaps (SBFF) and double-barrel fibular flaps (DBFF) by considering failure rates, dental implant complications, and bone union at the osteotomy sites.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, population, intervention, control, and outcomes (PICO) question, and the National Health and Medical Research Council scales. The event rate of complications and failures was calculated with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.
RESULTS: A total of 13 prospective studies with 441 participants and 330 graft sites were identified. A total of 235 participants had SBFF with 445 implants, and 95 had DBFF with 164 implants. The overall combined graft failure rates were 4.2% for SBFF and 3.2% for DBFF. The complication rate was 10% for SBFF and 1.9% for DBFF. Implant failure was at 4.7% in the SBFF group and 3.4% in the DBFF group.
CONCLUSIONS: Complication rates and implant failures were similar for SBFF and DBFF. Therefore, for long-term oral rehabilitation, both SBFF and DBFF are suitable procedures for mandibular reconstruction.