Open hour: senin - sabtu 09:00:00 - 20:00:00; minggu & tanggal merah tutup
The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the survival of dental implants placed into autogenous bone grafts and flaps, in head and neck cancer patients.

Results : Survival of dental implants placed (1)

author: Dominic P Laverty,Robert Kelly,Owen Addison | publisher: drg. Andreas Tjandra, Sp. Perio, FISID

Results

Study selection

Searches of EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Direct and MEDLINE generated 619 articles. After duplicate articles were removed, 566 unique articles were remaining. After the review of the titles and abstracts, 151 articles were accepted for further consideration, and 415 were rejected. After the full text was attained and reviewed for the 151 articles, 131 articles were rejected leaving 20 articles to be included in the systematic review (Fig. 1).

Study characteristics

The following data was extracted from the studies; study design, centres (single vs multiple centres), patient demographics (patient age, H&N cancer diagnosis), treatment modalities (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy), donor site of autogenous bone graft, outcome measures, implant details (implant system, implant number, implant site, type of bone implant placed into (non-vascularised vs vascularised/free flap), implant placement surgical protocol implant survival/success/failure figures), implant definitions (implant survival/success/failure), type of prosthetic rehabilitation (fixed vs removable), and any reported complications.

Risk of bias within studies

There were varying scores attained by the studies using the MINORS assessment tool, ranging from 7/16 to 13/16 representing varying degrees of bias within the studies (Table 1).

 

Statistical analysis

Due to the lack of controlled studies and the heterogeneity of the studies concerning patient selection, surgical protocols, implant loading, follow-up and prosthetic rehabilitation, implant survival definitions and figures, measurement protocols, and inconsistency in data reporting a formal meta-analysis would be statistically inappropriate and was not conducted. Descriptive statistics where used to interpret and present the data from these studies.

Results of the studies

Descriptive data extraction was carried out for the 20 studies and is summarised in Tables 1 and 2. All studies were retrospective observational studies in design with the majority undertaken at single centres; however, for 3 studies, this was unclear (Schultes et al., Yerit et al., Linsen et al. ).

Serial posts:


id post:
New thoughts
Me:
search
glossary
en in