Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry · 2021
Implant-prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review.
СтатьяСистематический 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.
Anitua Eduardo, Alkhraisat Mohammad Hamdan, Piñas Laura, Torre Aintzane, Eguia Asier
Аннотация
AIMS: This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant-prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP.
METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: "which implant-prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?". The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the "Newcastle-Ottawa scale" and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant-prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow-up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses.
CONCLUSION: The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).
METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: "which implant-prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?". The study was pre-registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the "Newcastle-Ottawa scale" and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant-prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow-up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses.
CONCLUSION: The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).