The Saudi dental journal · 2020
The role of prosthetic, orthodontic and implant-supported rehabilitation in the management of secondary malocclusion to maxillofacial trauma- A systematic review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Khalaf Khaled, Kheder Waad, El-Kishawi Mohamed, AlQahtani Haif A, Ghiasi Fatemeh S, Alabdulkareem Mohammad N, Zahiri Abdullah N, Rahmani Noorieh I
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Different approaches have been proposed to treat malocclusion secondary to the treatment of maxillofacial trauma. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of prosthodontic treatment, orthodontic treatment, and implant-supported rehabilitation for the management of secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma.
STUDY SELECTION: We searched five electronic databases and hand searched eight journals. The types of studies included were randomized controlled trials, cohorts, case-controls, and case series with at least eight patients with maxillofacial trauma and postoperative malocclusion. These studies used prosthetic treatment and implant-supported rehabilitation for secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. Risk of bias of eligible studies to be included in the final analysis was assessed independently by two authors using a tool for methodological quality assessment and synthesis of case series and case reports.
RESULTS: After initial screening and identification of titles and abstracts, full text of 44 articles were found and evaluated against inclusion criteria. Of these 42 articles were excluded and remaining two were included in the review. Both the studies were case series with moderate to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Both prosthetic treatment and implant-supported rehabilitation have the potential to restore secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. However, because less number of well-designed studies with high risk of bias were included in this systematic review, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed high-quality studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.
STUDY SELECTION: We searched five electronic databases and hand searched eight journals. The types of studies included were randomized controlled trials, cohorts, case-controls, and case series with at least eight patients with maxillofacial trauma and postoperative malocclusion. These studies used prosthetic treatment and implant-supported rehabilitation for secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. Risk of bias of eligible studies to be included in the final analysis was assessed independently by two authors using a tool for methodological quality assessment and synthesis of case series and case reports.
RESULTS: After initial screening and identification of titles and abstracts, full text of 44 articles were found and evaluated against inclusion criteria. Of these 42 articles were excluded and remaining two were included in the review. Both the studies were case series with moderate to high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Both prosthetic treatment and implant-supported rehabilitation have the potential to restore secondary malocclusion after maxillofacial trauma. However, because less number of well-designed studies with high risk of bias were included in this systematic review, the findings should be interpreted with caution. Well-designed high-quality studies are required to draw definitive conclusions.