Journal of endodontics · 2015
Survival of Intentionally Replanted Teeth and Implant-supported Single Crowns: A Systematic Review.
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.
Torabinejad Mahmoud, Dinsbach Nathan A, Turman Michael, Handysides Robert, Bahjri Khaled, White Shane N
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Although nonsurgical initial root canal treatment and retreatment have high success rates, periapical disease can remain. The survival rates of 2 surgical procedures, intentionally replanted (IR) teeth and implant-supported single crowns (ISCs), have yet to be compared. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the literature and quantify the survival of IR teeth and compare it with that of ISCs.
METHODS: Systematic searches were enriched by citation mining. Weighted survival means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model and compared.
RESULTS: The quality of the IR and ISC articles was only moderate. Data for ISCs were much more plentiful than for IR teeth. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted mean survival of 88% (95% CI, 81%-94%) for IR teeth. Root resorption was reported with a mean prevalence of 11%. The weighted mean survival of ISCs was 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%). The mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than that of IR teeth (P < .001). A recent study on IR teeth indicated that orthodontic extrusion before intentional replantation improved survival rates.
CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis found that the mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than IR teeth. However, treatment decisions must be based on a wide variety of treatment and patient-specific parameters. Intentional replantation may have a role when ISC is not practicable. Studies using contemporary treatment and analytic methods should be used to identify and measure intentional replant prognostic and treatment variables.
METHODS: Systematic searches were enriched by citation mining. Weighted survival means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a random-effects model and compared.
RESULTS: The quality of the IR and ISC articles was only moderate. Data for ISCs were much more plentiful than for IR teeth. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted mean survival of 88% (95% CI, 81%-94%) for IR teeth. Root resorption was reported with a mean prevalence of 11%. The weighted mean survival of ISCs was 97% (95% CI, 96%-98%). The mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than that of IR teeth (P < .001). A recent study on IR teeth indicated that orthodontic extrusion before intentional replantation improved survival rates.
CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review and meta-analysis found that the mean survival of ISCs was significantly higher than IR teeth. However, treatment decisions must be based on a wide variety of treatment and patient-specific parameters. Intentional replantation may have a role when ISC is not practicable. Studies using contemporary treatment and analytic methods should be used to identify and measure intentional replant prognostic and treatment variables.