Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
Methods : Effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]

Methods : Effect of dental implant surface roughness in patients with a history of periodontal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]

author: Anton Dank, Irene H A Aartman, Danil Wismeijer, Ali Tahmaseb | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

Two reviewers independently extracted data from the included studies. Disagreements were again resolved through discussion. Corresponding authors were contacted when data were incomplete or unclear. With respect to the listed PICO question, data were sought for (P) periodontally compromised and patients without a history of periodontitis receiving dental implant placement, (I) machined surface dental implants, and (C) rough surface dental implants. Both reviewers evaluated the following primary outcomes (O): implant survival rate after 3–10 years and implant mean marginal bone loss. Implant mean attachment loss, incidence of peri-implantitis, and incidence of bleeding on probing around implants were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Meta-analysis was attempted for studies reporting the same outcome measures. Finally, funding sources of the selected studies have been checked.

Quality assessment of the selected studies was executed by using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool (http://ohg.cochrane.org) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale (http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp) was applied for non-randomized studies to judge each included study on selection of studies, comparability of cohorts, and the ascertainment of either the exposure or outcome of interest. Stars were awarded such that the highest quality studies were awarded up to nine stars.

Review Manager 5.0 was used for statistical analysis. Differences in means and risk ratios were used as principal summary measures. Forest plots were created to visualize the differences between groups.

Serial posts:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in