Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Fundamentally, this review addresses the following question: In partially or fully edentulous patients, do implant-supported dental prostheses preserve orofacial tissues when compared to conventional prostheses or no therapy?
METHODS: This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Electronic searches were conducted at PubMed and Embase databases followed by manual search. Clinical studies comparing the effect of implant-supported prostheses with conventional rehabilitation or no treatment on alveolar bone resorption, remaining teeth, and jaw muscle thickness were considered for inclusion. A qualitative synthesis was conducted with all included studies, and data from selected studies were pooled quantitatively to perform a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were selected for analysis. Six studies reported on the effect of implant therapy on alveolar bone resorption (n = 453), six on the remaining teeth (n = 1014), while four studies evaluated masseter muscle thickness (n = 158). The results of the meta-analyses assessing alveolar bone resorption in the posterior mandible and in the anterior area of the maxilla, both fixed and random effects models, yielded no benefit of rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses when compared to conventional prostheses. For masseter bone thickness, however, a significant benefit for implant-supported prosthesis was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were unable to unequivocally answer the focus question. There are some indicators of the benefit of implant-supported prostheses over conventional prostheses or no therapy in preserving orofacial tissues, particularly for masseter muscle thickness. However, the evidence is still insufficient to confirm such perception.
METHODS: This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Electronic searches were conducted at PubMed and Embase databases followed by manual search. Clinical studies comparing the effect of implant-supported prostheses with conventional rehabilitation or no treatment on alveolar bone resorption, remaining teeth, and jaw muscle thickness were considered for inclusion. A qualitative synthesis was conducted with all included studies, and data from selected studies were pooled quantitatively to perform a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies were selected for analysis. Six studies reported on the effect of implant therapy on alveolar bone resorption (n = 453), six on the remaining teeth (n = 1014), while four studies evaluated masseter muscle thickness (n = 158). The results of the meta-analyses assessing alveolar bone resorption in the posterior mandible and in the anterior area of the maxilla, both fixed and random effects models, yielded no benefit of rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses when compared to conventional prostheses. For masseter bone thickness, however, a significant benefit for implant-supported prosthesis was observed.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were unable to unequivocally answer the focus question. There are some indicators of the benefit of implant-supported prostheses over conventional prostheses or no therapy in preserving orofacial tissues, particularly for masseter muscle thickness. However, the evidence is still insufficient to confirm such perception.
摘要：
目标：从根本上说，这篇综述解决了以下问题：在部分或完全缺牙的患者中，与常规修复或无治疗相比，种植体支持的假牙能保留口腔组织吗？
方法：本研究是根据2020年PRISMA系统评价指南进行的。在PubMed和Embase数据库中进行电子搜索，然后进行手动搜索。比较种植体支持的假体与常规康复或无治疗对牙槽骨吸收的影响的临床研究，剩下的牙齿,和颌骨肌肉厚度被认为包括在内。对所有纳入的研究进行了定性综合，和来自选定研究的数据进行定量汇总以进行荟萃分析.
结果：共选择14项研究进行分析。六项研究报道了种植疗法对牙槽骨吸收的影响（n=453），其余牙齿上有六个（n=1014），而四项研究评估咬肌厚度（n=158）。评估下颌骨后部和上颌骨前部区域牙槽骨吸收的荟萃分析结果，固定和随机效应模型，与传统假体相比，植入物支持的假体没有康复的好处。对于咬肌的骨厚度，然而,观察到植入物支持假体的显著获益.
结论：本系统综述和荟萃分析无法明确回答焦点问题。有一些指标表明，植入物支持的假体相对于传统假体或没有治疗方法可以保留口腔面部组织，特别是咬肌厚度。然而,证据仍然不足以证实这种看法。
方法：本研究是根据2020年PRISMA系统评价指南进行的。在PubMed和Embase数据库中进行电子搜索，然后进行手动搜索。比较种植体支持的假体与常规康复或无治疗对牙槽骨吸收的影响的临床研究，剩下的牙齿,和颌骨肌肉厚度被认为包括在内。对所有纳入的研究进行了定性综合，和来自选定研究的数据进行定量汇总以进行荟萃分析.
结果：共选择14项研究进行分析。六项研究报道了种植疗法对牙槽骨吸收的影响（n=453），其余牙齿上有六个（n=1014），而四项研究评估咬肌厚度（n=158）。评估下颌骨后部和上颌骨前部区域牙槽骨吸收的荟萃分析结果，固定和随机效应模型，与传统假体相比，植入物支持的假体没有康复的好处。对于咬肌的骨厚度，然而,观察到植入物支持假体的显著获益.
结论：本系统综述和荟萃分析无法明确回答焦点问题。有一些指标表明，植入物支持的假体相对于传统假体或没有治疗方法可以保留口腔面部组织，特别是咬肌厚度。然而,证据仍然不足以证实这种看法。
