| 1. |
- Jokstad, Asbjørn, et al.
(författare)
-
A Systematic Review of the Role of Implant Design in the Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Maxilla
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. - : Quintessence. - 0882-2786 .- 1942-4434. ; 31:Suppl, s. S43-S99
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To identify and critically appraise scientific publications evaluating the possible effect of implant design on treatment outcomes in the rehabilitation of patients with a fully edentulous maxilla. Materials and Methods: Scientific reports were sought in three electronic bibliographic databases, combined with searches for meeting abstracts, and in the grey literature. English, German, or Scandinavian scientific publications on prospective or retrospective longitudinal studies with effects of an implant design or feature on the treatment outcomes were eligible. Minimum requirement for inclusion was at least 10 study participants who were followed up for at least 2 years after implant loading. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for selecting data to extract from the individual studies. These were characteristics of the individual studies, risk of bias within individual studies, and the results of individual studies. Three editorial teams independently identified and extracted the data. Results: The search resulted in 998 primary studies, of which 525 met the inclusion criteria and were read in full text. Of these, 105 studies were included in qualitative syntheses. Seventeen studies were designed with an objective to assess effects of implant design or feature on outcomes, 23 studies described tilted implants to enable placement of longer implants, 30 studies reported effects of implants placed in zygomatic bone with or without additional alveolar implants, and 9 studies reported effects of implants placed in pterygoid bone or other bony buttresses with or without additional alveolar implants. Sixteen articles reported bone augmentation with simultaneous or delayed implant placement in patients with a predominantly Cawood-Howell bone class V and VI maxilla. Ten papers reported effects of implant design on outcomes, despite the lack of an a priori stated objective to assess a particular implant design or feature. There is a lack of compelling data to state that one particular implant system or design feature stands out amidst others, when applied to restoring the fully edentulous maxilla with implant-retained prostheses. Conclusion: This systematic review failed to identify compelling evidence to conclude that any particular implant or feature affects the treatment outcome in patients with a fully edentulous maxilla.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kenny, Kate P, et al.
(författare)
-
What are the important outcomes in traumatic dental injuries? An international approach to the development of a core outcome set.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Dental Traumatology. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1600-4469 .- 1600-9657. ; 34:1, s. 4-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background/Aims: There are numerous treatment options following traumatic dental injury (TDI). Systematic reviews of different treatments are challenging owing to the diversity of outcomes reported between clinical studies. This issue could be addressed through the development and implementation of a agreed and standardized collection of outcomes known as a core outcome set (COS). The aim of this study was to develop a COS for TDI in children and adults. The secondary aim was to establish what, how, when and by whom these outcomes should be measured. Materials and Method: The project was registered with Core Outcomes Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET). A web‐based survey was developed to capture the opinions of dentists globally as to which outcomes should be recorded. A list of outcomes was entered into a Delphi Survey and scored by an Expert Working Group (EWG). The scoring was repeated, followed by conference calls to discuss, refine and finalize the COS. The EWG split into small groups of subject‐specific experts to determine how, when and by whom each outcome would be measured. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 1476 dentists. The EWG identified 13 core outcomes to be recorded for all TDI's. An additional 10 injury‐specific outcomes were identified. A table has been produced for each outcome detailing what, when, and how each outcome should be recorded. Conclusions: A robust consensus process was used to develop an international COS for TDI in children and adults. This includes both generic and injury‐specific outcomes across all identified domains.
|
|
