PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: The present systematic review compares the stability, crestal bone levels and efficacy of osseodensification (OD) drilling techniques for dental implant placement to traditional drilling methods.
METHODS: The Cochrane online library, PubMed, Scopus, and other well-known online resources are used in the research. Using a systematic review design, the current study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis.
METHODS: Using precise keywords, a thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, crestal bone levels and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria.
METHODS: The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants from Egypt, India, and Brazil were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In several clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Bias assessment found various risks across different components.
CONCLUSIONS: The thorough examination of eight papers demonstrates that osseodensification is a technique with great promise in the field of dental implants. It exhibits superior torque values, bone development, and stability when compared to traditional drilling. The overall results highlight the potential of osseodensification to improve clinical outcomes and advance the science of dental implantology, even in the face of variances in bias concerns.
METHODS: The Cochrane online library, PubMed, Scopus, and other well-known online resources are used in the research. Using a systematic review design, the current study examines published qualitative studies with an emphasis on analysis.
METHODS: Using precise keywords, a thorough search of pertinent databases was carried out in accordance with PRISMA standards. Studies testing dental implant stability, crestal bone levels and clinical results using both OD and traditional procedures were covered by the inclusion criteria.
METHODS: The risk of bias and quality of included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: A total of 170 patients and 334 implants from Egypt, India, and Brazil were included in eight papers that made up the systematic review. In several clinical situations, osseodensification outperformed standard drilling in terms of implant durability, bone development, and torque data. Statistical analysis presented the lowest risks, while blinded outcome assessment, allocation concealment, random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data and experimental technique revealed higher risks. Bias assessment found various risks across different components.
CONCLUSIONS: The thorough examination of eight papers demonstrates that osseodensification is a technique with great promise in the field of dental implants. It exhibits superior torque values, bone development, and stability when compared to traditional drilling. The overall results highlight the potential of osseodensification to improve clinical outcomes and advance the science of dental implantology, even in the face of variances in bias concerns.
摘要：
目的：本系统综述比较了稳定性，牙髓骨水平和骨致密化（OD）钻孔技术对传统钻孔方法的植入。
方法：Cochrane在线图书馆，PubMed,Scopus,和其他知名的在线资源被用于研究。使用系统的审查设计，本研究检查已发表的定性研究，重点是分析。
方法：使用精确的关键字，根据PRISMA标准对相关数据库进行了彻底搜索.测试牙种植体稳定性的研究，纳入标准涵盖了使用OD和传统手术的蠕动骨水平和临床结果。
方法：纳入研究的偏倚风险和质量使用Newcastle-Ottawa量表进行观察性研究，使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具进行随机对照试验。
结果：共有170名患者和334名来自埃及的植入物，印度,和巴西被纳入构成系统审查的八篇论文。在一些临床情况下，骨致密化在植入物耐久性方面优于标准钻孔，骨发育，和扭矩数据。统计分析显示的风险最低，而盲目的结果评估，分配隐藏，随机序列生成，不完整的结局数据和实验技术揭示了更高的风险。偏差评估发现了不同组件的各种风险。
结论：对8篇论文的全面检查表明，骨致密化是一种在牙种植体领域具有巨大前景的技术。它具有优越的扭矩值，骨发育，与传统钻井相比，稳定性好。总体结果突出了骨致密化对改善临床结果和推进牙科种植科学的潜力。即使面对偏差担忧的差异。
方法：Cochrane在线图书馆，PubMed,Scopus,和其他知名的在线资源被用于研究。使用系统的审查设计，本研究检查已发表的定性研究，重点是分析。
方法：使用精确的关键字，根据PRISMA标准对相关数据库进行了彻底搜索.测试牙种植体稳定性的研究，纳入标准涵盖了使用OD和传统手术的蠕动骨水平和临床结果。
方法：纳入研究的偏倚风险和质量使用Newcastle-Ottawa量表进行观察性研究，使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具进行随机对照试验。
结果：共有170名患者和334名来自埃及的植入物，印度,和巴西被纳入构成系统审查的八篇论文。在一些临床情况下，骨致密化在植入物耐久性方面优于标准钻孔，骨发育，和扭矩数据。统计分析显示的风险最低，而盲目的结果评估，分配隐藏，随机序列生成，不完整的结局数据和实验技术揭示了更高的风险。偏差评估发现了不同组件的各种风险。
结论：对8篇论文的全面检查表明，骨致密化是一种在牙种植体领域具有巨大前景的技术。它具有优越的扭矩值，骨发育，与传统钻井相比，稳定性好。总体结果突出了骨致密化对改善临床结果和推进牙科种植科学的潜力。即使面对偏差担忧的差异。
