目的:本系统综述比较了球和定位器附件对完全无牙患者种植体保留的覆盖义齿中边缘骨丢失的影响。
方法:遵循PRISMA指南,健康科学馆员在7个数据库中完成了从成立到2023年3月17日的文献检索。有15,686个项目从Embase.com导出到EndNote,CINAHL(EBSCO),科克伦图书馆,OvidMEDLINE-ALL,PubMed,Scopus,和WebofScience。手动搜索又增加了四篇文章。重复数据删除后,筛选了6756个项目的资格。通过全文评估了29项研究,其中十项研究,涉及424名受试者,包括在审查中。使用Cochrane偏差风险工具和纽卡斯尔渥太华量表进行偏差风险评估。进行荟萃分析以综合和分析来自选定研究的集体数据。
结果:纳入的研究使用了不同的方法,植入系统,和加载协议。大多数研究报告球和定位器附件之间的边缘骨丢失没有显着差异。荟萃分析显示高度异质性。
结论:这项系统评价的结果表明,在种植体保留的覆盖义齿中,球和定位器附件在边缘骨丢失方面表现出相似的性能。然而,数量有限,偏见的风险,和异质性的研究突出了标准化的研究设计和更大的样本量在未来的调查中得出更明确的结论的必要性。
This systematic review compares the impact of ball and locator attachments on marginal bone loss in implant-retained overdentures in completely edentulous patients.
Following PRISMA guidelines, health science librarians completed literature searches from inception to 17 March 2023 in seven databases. There were 15,686 items exported to EndNote from Embase.com, CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE-ALL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Hand-searching added four more articles. After deduplication, 6,756 items were screened for eligibility. Twenty-nine studies were assessed by full text, of which ten studies, involving 424 subjects, were included in the review. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A meta-analysis was performed to synthesize and analyze the collective data from the selected studies.
The included studies used diverse methodologies, implant systems, and loading protocols. Most studies reported no significant difference in marginal bone loss between ball and locator attachments. The meta-analysis revealed high heterogeneity.
The results of this systematic review suggest that ball and locator attachments exhibit similar performance in terms of marginal bone loss in implant-retained overdentures. However, the limited number, risk of bias, and heterogeneity of studies highlight the need for standardized research designs and larger sample sizes in future investigations to draw more definitive conclusions.