-
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Jan 2024Purpose Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are frequent stomatological disorders. However, their treatment is controversial. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Purpose Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are frequent stomatological disorders. However, their treatment is controversial. Therefore, we compared the efficacy of combination therapy (splint therapy along with physiotherapy, manual therapy, and counseling) with physiotherapy, manual therapy, and counseling alone. The extent of mouth opening and pain perception were the outcomes.Study selection Systematic searches for English publications were performed using four major literature databases (Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science). We included randomized controlled trials. We calculated mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CI) for pain perception and maximum mouth opening (MMO) for the two groups. The Hartung-Knapp adjustment was used for cases comprising at least five studies.Results Six articles were included in the pain perception category, and four were reviewed for MMO at baseline. Four articles assessed pain perception, and two assessed MMO at 1 month. Five articles were analyzed upon comparing pain perception at baseline and 1-month follow-up. The mean difference was -2.54 [95% CI: -3.38; to -1.70] in the intervention group and -2.33 [95% CI: -4.06; to -0.61] in the control group. Two articles were analyzed upon comparing MMO at baseline and 1-month follow-up. The mean difference in the intervention group was 3.69 [95% CI: -0.34; 7.72], whereas that in the control group was 3.62 [95% CI: -3.43; 10.67].Conclusions Both therapies can be used in the management of myogenic TMD. Due to the marginal differences between the baseline and 1-month values, our results could not confirm the efficacy of combination therapy.
Topics: Humans; Splints; Treatment Outcome; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Temporomandibular Joint Disorders; Pain
PubMed: 37286515
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00264 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Nov 2023Standard-diameter dental implants are not always applicable because of anatomic limitations of the residual ridge. Thus, mini-implants have been increasingly used and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Standard-diameter dental implants are not always applicable because of anatomic limitations of the residual ridge. Thus, mini-implants have been increasingly used and offer an alternative. However, data regarding prosthetic complications, maintenance factors, and clinical outcomes are limited.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare prosthetic complications and maintenance events and clinical outcomes in residual ridges rehabilitated with mandibular implant overdentures (IODs) by using standard implants or mini-implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Nine electronic databases were searched. Quantitative analyses to measure the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were applied. Those methods were used to assess prosthetic complications and maintenance events (abutment adjustments, replacement of retentive element, occlusal adjustment, and overdenture fracture) and clinical outcomes related to postoperative pain, probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), marginal bone loss (MBL), and implant survival rate.
RESULTS
Altogether, 7 publications were selected. Mini-implants presented reduced abutment adjustments (RR 0.23 [0.07, 0.73], P=.01), replacement of retentive element (RR 0.41 [0.31, 0.54], P<.001), occlusal adjustment (RR 0.53 [0.31, 0.91], P=.02), and overdenture fracture (RR 0.46 [0.23, 0.94], P=.03) compared with standard implants. Additionally, mini-implants presented lower values for PI at 6 months (SMD -0.27 [-0.47, -0.08], P=.006) and 12 months (SMD -0.25 [-0.46, -0.05], P=.01). No additional tangible differences were noted.
CONCLUSIONS
Mini-implants might be an alternative choice based on the number of prosthetic complications and maintenance events. This was also confirmed by the comparable clinical data between standard implants and mini-implants.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Denture, Overlay; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Alveolar Bone Loss; Mandible
PubMed: 35120735
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.010