首页> 外文期刊>International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery >Short implants (= 8 mm) compared to standard length implants (8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
【24h】

Short implants (= 8 mm) compared to standard length implants (8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

机译:与上颌窦楼的标准长度植入物(& 8 mm)相比,短植入物(& = 8 mm)与上颌窦落地增强:系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The objective was to test the hypothesis of no difference in the treatment outcome after the installation of short implants (= 8 mm) in the posterior part of the maxilla compared to standard length implants (8 mm) in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA) using the lateral window technique, after an observation period of = 3 years. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, in combination with a hand-search of relevant journals, was conducted. The search yielded 1102 titles. Finally, three studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were included. All were considered to have a low risk of bias. Meta-analyses revealed no significant differences in implant survival or peri-implant marginal bone loss between the two treatment modalities. However, the use of standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA was characterized by a tendency towards more peri-implant marginal bone loss. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment modalities with regard to overall patient satisfaction. Short implants seem to be a suitable alternative to standard length implants in conjunction with MSFA. However, further randomized controlled trials with larger patient samples and an observation period of more than 3 years are needed before one treatment modality might be considered superior to the other.
机译:目的是测试在颌骨后部安装短植入物(& = 8 mm)之后的治疗结果的假设与标准长度植入物(& 8 mm)结合上颌窦(& 8 mm)使用横向窗口技术的地板增强(MSFA),在观察期的观察期之后= 3年。进行了搜索MEDLINE,EMBASE和Cochrane库数据库,并与相关期刊的手进行组合进行。搜索产生1102个标题。最后,包括符合纳入标准的三项研究。所有人都被认为具有低偏见的风险。荟萃分析显示,两种治疗方式之间的植入物存活或Peri植入边缘骨质损失没有显着差异。然而,使用标准长度植入物与MSFA结合的特征在于趋势更加植入边缘骨质损失。两种治疗方式与总体患者满意度的两种治疗方式之间没有统计学意义。短暂植入物似乎是与MSFA结合标准长度植入物的合适替代品。然而,在一个治疗方式可能被认为优于另一个治疗方式之前,需要具有较大患者样品的进一步随机对照试验和超过3年的观察期。

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