-
The Bone & Joint Journal May 2021This systematic review asked which patterns of complications are associated with the three reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthetic designs, as classified... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
This systematic review asked which patterns of complications are associated with the three reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthetic designs, as classified by Routman et al, in patients undergoing RTSA for the management of cuff tear arthropathy, massive cuff tear, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The three implant design philosophies investigated were medial glenoid/medial humerus (MGMH), medial glenoid/lateral humerus (MGLH), and lateral glenoid/medial humerus (LGMH).
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on complication occurrence and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Meta-analysis was conducted on the reported proportion of complications, weighted by sample size, and PROMs were pooled using the reported standardized mean difference (SMD). Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde's non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020193041).
RESULTS
A total of 42 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Rates of scapular notching were found to be significantly higher in MGMH implants (52% (95% confidence interval (CI) 40 to 63)) compared with MGLH ((18% (95% CI 6 to 34)) and LGMH (12% (95% CI 3 to 26)). Higher rates of glenoid loosening were seen in MGMH implants (6% (95% CI 3 to 10)) than in MGLH implants (0% (95% CI 0 to 2)). However, strength of evidence for this finding was low. No significant differences were identified in any other complication, and there were no significant differences observed in PROMs between implant philosophies.
CONCLUSION
This systematic review has found significant improvement in PROMS and low complication rates across the implant philosophies studied. Scapular notching was the only complication found definitely to have significantly higher prevalence with the MGMH implant design. Cite this article: 2021;103-B(5):813-821.
Topics: Arthroplasty, Replacement, Shoulder; Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Shoulder Prosthesis
PubMed: 33616421
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.103B.BJJ-2020-2101 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2019Immediate loading of dental implants has gained widespread popularity because of its advantages in shortening treatment duration and improving esthetics and patient... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Immediate loading of dental implants has gained widespread popularity because of its advantages in shortening treatment duration and improving esthetics and patient acceptance. However, whether immediate loading can achieve clinical outcomes comparable with those of early or conventional delayed loading is still unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of immediate loading versus early or conventional loading implants in patients rehabilitated with fixed prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were supplemented by manual searches up to October 2018. Only human randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing immediate with early or conventional loading dental implants were included. Quality assessment was performed by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. For the meta-analysis, the dichotomous and continuous variables were pooled and analyzed by using risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The outcomes assessed included survival rate, marginal bone level changes, peri-implant gingival level, probing depth, and implant stability. The subgroup analyses included healing methods, implant time, occlusal contact, number of missing teeth, and tooth position.
RESULTS
Thirty-nine trials (49 articles) were included from the initial 763 references evaluated. When compared with conventional loading, with implants regarded as a statistical unit, a statistically significant lower survival rate was observed in the immediate loading dental implant (RR=0.974; 95% CI, 0.954, 0.994; P=.012). Regarding other outcomes, including marginal bone level changes, peri-implant gingival level, probing depth, and implant stability, no statistically significant differences were observed when comparing immediate versus early or conventional loading (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with early loading, immediate loading could achieve comparable implant survival rates and marginal bone level changes. Compared with conventional loading, immediate loading was associated with a higher incidence of implant failure.
Topics: Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 31421892
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.05.013 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2022The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses...
AIM
The aim of this systematic review was to answer the following focused question: "In partially edentulous patients with periodontitis, are removable dental prostheses (RDPs) more efficacious than no prosthetic treatment, treatment to a shortened dental arch (SDA), or tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed electronically for the period 1966-2020. Two authors independently assessed the studies for eligibility according to the PRISMA guidelines. Risk assessment was performed using RoB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
RESULTS
Two retrospective studies indicated that RDPs increased the risk of tooth loss compared to FDPs in patients with a history of periodontitis. Prospective studies found that RDPs could be maintained without any significant periodontal destruction on a long-term basis. Owing to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis could be performed. Several studies indicated that RDP increased plaque accumulation. RDPs had only a limited effect on masticatory efficiency and nutritional status. RDPs may improve oral-health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), but to a lesser extent compared with that of patients treated to an SDA.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no strong evidence that RDPs per se will cause periodontal destruction including tooth loss. RDPs do not inevitably improve masticatory efficiency but improve OHRQoL, although less than for patients treated with FDPs including resin-bonded FDPs.
Topics: Dental Implants; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous, Partially; Periodontitis; Prospective Studies; Quality of Life; Retrospective Studies; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 34761421
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13519 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2023Artificial intelligence applications are increasing in prosthodontics. Still, the current development and performance of artificial intelligence in prosthodontic... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence applications are increasing in prosthodontics. Still, the current development and performance of artificial intelligence in prosthodontic applications has not yet been systematically documented and analyzed.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the performance of the artificial intelligence models in prosthodontics for tooth shade selection, automation of restoration design, mapping the tooth preparation finishing line, optimizing the manufacturing casting, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic systematic review was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies with artificial intelligence models were selected based on 6 criteria: tooth shade selection, automated fabrication of dental restorations, mapping the finishing line of tooth preparations, optimizing the manufacturing casting process, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures. Two investigators independently evaluated the quality assessment of the studies by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (nonrandomized experimental studies). A third investigator was consulted to resolve lack of consensus.
RESULTS
A total of 36 articles were reviewed and classified into 6 groups based on the application of the artificial intelligence model. One article reported on the development of an artificial intelligence model for tooth shade selection, reporting better shade matching than with conventional visual selection; 14 articles reported on the feasibility of automated design of dental restorations using different artificial intelligence models; 1 artificial intelligence model was able to mark the margin line without manual interaction with an average accuracy ranging from 90.6% to 97.4%; 2 investigations developed artificial intelligence algorithms for optimizing the manufacturing casting process, reporting an improvement of the design process, minimizing the porosity on the cast metal, and reducing the overall manufacturing time; 1 study proposed an artificial intelligence model that was able to predict facial changes in patients using removable prostheses; and 17 investigations that developed clinical decision support, expert systems for designing removable partial dentures for clinicians and educational purposes, computer-aided learning with video interactive programs for student learning, and automated removable partial denture design.
CONCLUSIONS
Artificial intelligence models have shown the potential for providing a reliable diagnostic tool for tooth shade selection, automated restoration design, mapping the preparation finishing line, optimizing the manufacturing casting, predicting facial changes in patients with removable prostheses, and designing removable partial dentures, but they are still in development. Additional studies are needed to further develop and assess their clinical performance.
Topics: Humans; Prosthodontics; Artificial Intelligence; Dental Implants; Tooth; Dental Care; Denture, Partial, Removable
PubMed: 34281697
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.001 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2021To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the survival, failure, and complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (SCs).
METHODS
Literature search was conducted in Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until September 2020 for randomized, prospective, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of at least 1 year, evaluating the outcome of veneered and/or monolithic all-ceramic SCs supported by titanium dental implants. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models.
RESULTS
Forty-nine RCTs and prospective studies reporting on 57 material cohorts were included. Meta-analysis of the included studies indicated an estimated 3-year survival rate of veneered-reinforced glass-ceramic implant-supported SCs of 97.6% (95% CI: 87.0%-99.6%). The estimated 3-year survival rates were 97.0% (95% CI: 94.0%-98.5%) for monolithic-reinforced glass-ceramic implant SCs, 96.9% (95% CI: 93.4%-98.6%) for veneered densely sintered alumina SCs, 96.3% (95% CI: 93.9%-97.7%) for veneered zirconia SCs, 96.1% (95% CI: 93.4%-97.8%) for monolithic zirconia SCs and only 36.3% (95% CI: 0.04%-87.7%) for resin-matrix-ceramic (RMC) SCs. With the exception of RMC SCs (p < 0.0001), the differences in survival rates between the materials did not reach statistical significance. Veneered SCs showed significantly (p = 0.017) higher annual ceramic chipping rates (1.65%) compared with monolithic SCs (0.39%). The location of the SCs, anterior vs. posterior, did not influence survival and chipping rates.
CONCLUSIONS
With the exception of RMC SCs, veneered and monolithic implant-supported ceramic SCs showed favorable short-term survival and complication rates. Significantly higher rates for ceramic chipping, however, were reported for veneered compared with monolithic ceramic SCs.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34642991
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13863 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Feb 2022The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Implant-supported removable partial dentures compared to conventional dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) with distal extension removable partial dentures (DERPDs) in terms of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs: patients' quality of life and satisfaction) and to determine mechanical and biological complications associated with ISRPDs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed on four databases to identify studies treating Kennedy class I or II edentulous patients and which compared ISRPDs with DERPDs in terms of PROMS and studies, which evaluated mechanical and biological complications associated ISRPDs. Two authors independently extracted data on quality of life, patient satisfaction, and biomechanical complications from these studies. The risk of bias was assessed for each study, and for PROMs, the authors performed a meta-analysis by using a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Thirteen articles were included based on the selection criteria. The difference in mean scores for quality of life (30.5 ± 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 24.9-36.1) and patient satisfaction (-20.8 ± 0.2; 95% CI, -23.7 to -17.8) between treatments with conventional and implant-supported removable dentures was statistically significant (p < .05). Implant-supported removable dentures improved patients' overall quality of life and satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications, such as clasp adjustment, abutment or implant loosening, marginal bone resorption, and peri-implant mucositis, were noted in ISRPDs during patient follow-up. Studies assessing PROMs were very heterogeneous (I = 65%, p = .85; I = 75%, p = .88).
CONCLUSIONS
ISRPDs significantly improved quality of life and patient satisfaction. Some mechanical and biological complications have been associated with ISRPDs treatment, requiring regular monitoring of patients to avoid the occurrence of these complications.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Partial, Removable; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Quality of Life
PubMed: 35014207
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.521 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jan 2022To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by ceramic implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on a focused question and customized PICO framework, electronic (Medline/EMBASE/Cochrane) and manual searches for studies reporting the clinical outcomes of all-ceramic SCs and FDPs supported by ceramic implants ≥12 months were performed. The primary outcomes were reconstruction survival and the chipping proportion. The secondary outcomes were implant survival, technical complications, and patient-related outcome measurements. Meta-analyses were performed after 1, 2, and 5 years using random-effect meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eight of the 1,403 initially screened titles and 55 full texts were included. Five reported on monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2) SCs, one on veneered zirconia SCs, and two on veneered zirconia SCs and FDPs, which reported all on cement-retained reconstructions (mean observation: 12.0-61.0 months). Meta-analyses estimated a 5-year survival rate of 94% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 82%-100%) for overall implant survival. Reconstruction survival proportions after 5 years were: monolithic LS2, 100% (95%CI: 95%-100%); veneered zirconia SCs, 89% (95%CI: 62%-100%); and veneered zirconia FDPs 94% (95%CI: 81%-100%). The chipping proportion after 5 years was: monolithic LS2, 2% (95%CI: 0%-11%); veneered zirconia SCs, 38% (95%CI: 24%-54%); and veneered zirconia FDPs, 57% (95%CI: 38%-76%). Further outcomes were summarized descriptively.
CONCLUSIONS
Due to the limited data available, only tendencies could be identified. All-ceramic reconstructions supported by ceramic implants demonstrated promising survival rates after mid-term observation. However, high chipping proportions of veneered zirconia SCs and, particularly, FDPs diminished the overall outcome. Monolithic LS2 demonstrated fewer clinical complications. Monolithic reconstructions could be a valid treatment option for ceramic implants.
Topics: Ceramics; Crowns; Dental Implants; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Metal Ceramic Alloys; Zirconium
PubMed: 34665900
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13871 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Oct 2020To systematically review in vitro and clinical studies comparing quantitatively the 3D accuracy (global implant deviations) of digital vs conventional implant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To systematically review in vitro and clinical studies comparing quantitatively the 3D accuracy (global implant deviations) of digital vs conventional implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify in vitro and clinical studies, reporting on the 3D accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. Secondary outcomes were the effect of implant angulation, type of conventional impression technique, and type of intraoral scanner on the accuracy of implant impressions.
RESULTS
The inclusion criteria were met by 9 in vitro studies and 1 clinical study reporting on completely edentulous impressions, while 6 in vitro and 2 clinical studies reported on partially edentulous impressions. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed for 5 completely edentulous and 6 partially edentulous studies. The studies exhibited high values for heterogeneity. A random effects model was conducted to estimate the effect size. Based on 5 in vitro studies on completely edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 8.20 µm (95% CI: -53.56, 37.15) and the digital impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.72). Based on 1 clinical and 5 in vitro studies on partially edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 52.31 µm (95% CI: 6.30, 98.33) and the conventional impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.03). Five in vitro and 2 clinical studies were not included in the quantitative analysis due to heterogeneity in the methodology. Implant angulation affected the accuracy in favor of the partially edentulous conventional impressions whereas the effect of different scanners was not statistically significant on the completely edentulous impressions (p = 0.82).
CONCLUSIONS
Digital scans appear to have comparable 3D accuracy with conventional implant impressions based mainly on in vitro studies. However, clinical trials are recommended to investigate the clinical accuracy of digital scans and digitally fabricated interim or prototype prostheses, before digital implant scans can be recommended for routine clinical use.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Models, Dental; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 32613641
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13211 -
BJU International Mar 2021To systematically review the literature in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical and non-invasive penile enhancement procedures for aesthetic and...
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature in order to investigate the efficacy and safety of surgical and non-invasive penile enhancement procedures for aesthetic and therapeutic purposes.
METHODS
A systematic search for papers investigating penile enhancement procedures was performed using the MEDLINE database. Articles published from January 2010 to December 2019, written in English, including >10 cases, and reporting objective length and/or girth outcomes, were included. Studies without primary data and conference abstracts were excluded. The main outcome measure was objective length and/or girth improvement. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.
RESULTS
Out of 220 unique records, a total of 57 were reviewed. Eighteen studies assessed interventions for penile enhancement in 1764 healthy men complaining of small penis. Thirty-nine studies investigated 2587 men with concomitant pathologies consisting mostly of Peyronie's disease and erectile dysfunction. Twenty-five studies evaluated non-invasive interventions and 32 studies assessed surgical interventions, for a total of 2192 and 2159 men, respectively. Non-invasive interventions, including traction therapies and injection of fillers, were safe and mostly efficacious, whereas surgical interventions were associated with minor complications and mostly increased penile dimensions and/or corrected penile curvature. Overall, the quality of studies was low, and standardized criteria to evaluate and report efficacy and safety of procedures, as well as patient satisfaction, were missing.
CONCLUSION
The quality of the studies on penile enhancement procedures published in the last decade is still low. This prevents us from establishing recommendations based on scientific evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of interventions that are performed to increase the penis size for aesthetic or therapeutic indications.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Male; Microspheres; Organ Size; Patient Satisfaction; Penile Erection; Penile Induration; Penis; Polyesters; Polymethyl Methacrylate; Prostheses and Implants; Traction; Urogenital Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 32575166
DOI: 10.1111/bju.15145 -
The International Journal of...To synthesize evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) on different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations.
PURPOSE
To synthesize evidence derived from systematic reviews (SRs) on different interventions for rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A protocol-oriented search was established to address the PICO question: What is the current evidence regarding rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with different implant-supported prostheses in terms of implant and prosthesis survival? The primary outcomes were implant and prosthesis survival rates evaluated from SRs of clinical studies including adult patients with complete edentulism of the maxilla and comparing different implant-supported rehabilitation strategies. Methodologic quality of the SRs was assessed with the AMSTAR-2 tool.
RESULTS
The final selection process led to the inclusion of 36 SRs that were grouped as: (1) addressing maxillae with sufficient bone to place implants; (2) addressing maxillae with insufficient bone to place implants; and (3) comparing different types of prosthesis, number of implants, patient-reported outcomes, and economic evaluations. The literature describes four or more implants as suitable for full-arch fixed prostheses and implant-supported overdentures; in both cases, the overall survival rate is > 95%. Mini-implants present very high short-term failure rates (> 30%). Poor description of technical complications, adjustments, and maintenance and corresponding costs precluded a cost-effectiveness analysis.
CONCLUSION
No implant-supported rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla (fixed or removable) should be supported on fewer than four implants. A one-piece full-arch fixed dental prosthesis can be supported by a minimum of two anterior axial plus two posterior distally tilted implants or by six to eight axial implants symmetrically distributed through the posterior and anterior regions of the arch. Four to six implants is the advised number to support an overdenture. The use of mini-implants in the maxilla is inadvisable.
Topics: Adult; Dental Implants; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Maxilla; Mouth, Edentulous; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33571327
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7162