Journal of periodontology · 2019
The significance of surgically modifying soft tissue phenotype around fixed dental prostheses: An American Academy of Periodontology best evidence 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.
Lin Guo-Hao, Curtis Donald A, Kapila Yvonne, Velasquez Diego, Kan Joseph Y K, Tahir Peggy, Avila-Ortiz Gustavo, Kao Richard T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This systematic review endeavored to investigate the effect of soft tissue phenotype modification therapy (PhMT-s) at sites with a tooth or an implant supported fixed dental prosthesis.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted by two independent examiners to identify relevant studies reporting differences in clinical, esthetic, or radiographic outcomes of interest between sites underwent PhMT-s and sites that remained untreated. Risk of bias assessment was calculated for all included studies. Meta-analyses involving endpoints of interest were performed when feasible.
RESULTS: No controlled studies pertaining to tooth sites were identified. A total of six articles reporting on the outcomes of buccal soft tissue phenotype modification around implants were selected, of which, five were included in the meta-analyses. Quantitative analyses showed a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.98 mm (95% CI = 0.25 to 1.72 mm, P = 0.009) for change of tissue thickness; a WMD of -4.87% (95% CI = -34.27 to 24.53%, P = 0.75) for bleeding on probing (BOP); a WMD of 0.36 mm (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.59 mm, P = 0.003) for mucosal recession (MR); a WMD of 0.13 mm (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.36 mm, P = 0.30 for probing depth (PD); a WMD of 1.08 (95% CI = -0.39 to 2.55, P = 0.15) for pink esthetic score (PES), and a WMD of 0.40 mm (95% CI = -0.34 to 1.14 mm, P = 0.28) for marginal bone loss (MBL).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical modification of peri-implant soft tissue phenotype via PhMT-s may decrease the amount of MR. Future clinical trials are needed to warrant the clinical benefits of modifying soft tissue phenotype around tooth-supported restorations.
METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted by two independent examiners to identify relevant studies reporting differences in clinical, esthetic, or radiographic outcomes of interest between sites underwent PhMT-s and sites that remained untreated. Risk of bias assessment was calculated for all included studies. Meta-analyses involving endpoints of interest were performed when feasible.
RESULTS: No controlled studies pertaining to tooth sites were identified. A total of six articles reporting on the outcomes of buccal soft tissue phenotype modification around implants were selected, of which, five were included in the meta-analyses. Quantitative analyses showed a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.98 mm (95% CI = 0.25 to 1.72 mm, P = 0.009) for change of tissue thickness; a WMD of -4.87% (95% CI = -34.27 to 24.53%, P = 0.75) for bleeding on probing (BOP); a WMD of 0.36 mm (95% CI = 0.12 to 0.59 mm, P = 0.003) for mucosal recession (MR); a WMD of 0.13 mm (95% CI = -0.11 to 0.36 mm, P = 0.30 for probing depth (PD); a WMD of 1.08 (95% CI = -0.39 to 2.55, P = 0.15) for pink esthetic score (PES), and a WMD of 0.40 mm (95% CI = -0.34 to 1.14 mm, P = 0.28) for marginal bone loss (MBL).
CONCLUSIONS: Surgical modification of peri-implant soft tissue phenotype via PhMT-s may decrease the amount of MR. Future clinical trials are needed to warrant the clinical benefits of modifying soft tissue phenotype around tooth-supported restorations.