首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Dentistry >Ridge Preservation Procedures after Tooth Extractions: A Systematic Review
【24h】

Ridge Preservation Procedures after Tooth Extractions: A Systematic Review

机译:拔牙后的脊保护程序:系统评价

获取原文
           

摘要

Background. The purpose of this systematic review was to accurately assess the procedural success of ridge preservation technique through the application of strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data Sources. A methodical search of PubMed of the US National Library of Medicine and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted for applicable articles. Only randomized controlled trials comparing ridge preservation treatment with a nongrafting control, ten-subject minimum sample size, and three or more months of follow-up were included in our study. Types of Studies Reviewed. In a screening between January 1980 and September 2017, articles meeting predetermined criteria were further examined in a qualitative data analysis. A thorough search of the databases provided 1876 articles. Of these records, 174 were assessed for eligibility through the systematic employment of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results. Two records were appropriate for further data analysis. One study used a mixture of a deproteinized cancellous bovine bone and porcine collagen fibers in a block form (DBB/CF), while the other study used leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF). The use of DBB/CF reduced the magnitude of vertical bone resorption, yet the study showed high risk of bias. The use of L-PRF reduced the magnitude of both the horizontal and vertical crestal bone resorption; however, the low sample size created wide standard deviations between the test and control groups. Inherent weaknesses were present in both studies. Through methodical analysis of both records, the dissimilarities prevented the conduction of a meta-analysis. Implications of Key Findings. Within the limitations of this systematic review, L-PRF reduced the magnitude of vertical and horizontal bone resorption, which places L-PRF as a potential material of choice for ridge preservation procedures. Conclusions. Within the limitations and weaknesses of both studies, the use of DBB/CF prevented the vertical crestal bone resorption while the L-PRF prevented both the horizontal and vertical crestal bone resorption. More randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to eliminate all the confounding factors, which bias the outcome of ridge preservation techniques.
机译:背景。本系统综述的目的是通过应用严格的纳入和排除标准,准确评估脊保护技术的程序成功性。数据源。系统地搜索了美国国家医学图书馆的PubMed和对照试验的Cochrane中央登记册,以查找适用的文章。我们的研究仅包括比较comparing保存治疗与非移植对照,十名受试者的最小样本量以及三个或三个月以上随访的随机对照试验。审查的研究类型。在1980年1月至2017年9月的筛选中,对符合预定标准的文章进行了定性数据分析。对数据库的彻底搜索提供了1876篇文章。在这些记录中,通过系统地采用纳入和排除标准评估了174位患者的资格。结果。有两条记录适合进行进一步的数据分析。一项研究使用了块状脱蛋白的松质牛骨和猪胶原蛋白纤维的混合物(DBB / CF),而另一项研究则使用了富含白细胞-血小板的纤维蛋白(L-PRF)。 DBB / CF的使用降低了垂直骨吸收的幅度,但研究显示偏倚的风险很高。 L-PRF的使用降低了水平和垂直牙槽骨吸收的幅度;但是,低样本量在测试组和对照组之间产生了较大的标准差。两项研究均存在内在的弱点。通过对这两个记录的系统分析,不同之处阻止了荟萃分析的进行。重要发现的含义。在此系统评价的限制内,L-PRF降低了垂直和水平骨吸收的幅度,这使L-PRF成为了脊保存程序的潜在选择材料。结论。在两项研究的局限和弱点内,使用DBB / CF可以防止垂直骨吸收,而L-PRF可以防止水平和垂直cre骨吸收。需要更多的随机对照临床试验来消除所有混杂因素,这些因素会影响脊保存技术的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号