A systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP
dc.contributor.authorBRANDAO, Thais Bianca
dc.contributor.authorVECHIATO FILHO, Aljomar Jose
dc.contributor.authorBATISTA, Victor Eduardo de Souza
dc.contributor.authorOLIVEIRA, Maria Cecilia Querido de
dc.contributor.authorVISSER, Anita
dc.contributor.authorFARIA, Jose Carlos Marques de
dc.contributor.authorCASTRO JUNIOR, Gilberto de
dc.contributor.authorSANTOS-SILVA, Alan Roger
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-07T15:03:32Z
dc.date.available2017-04-07T15:03:32Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractStatement of problem. Currently, which type of suprastructure is preferred when fabricating implant-retained craniofacial prostheses is unknown. Purpose. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the best retention system (bar-clips versus magnets) for implant-retained craniofacial prostheses. Material and methods. This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A systematic search of Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases for clinical trials was conducted on implant-retained craniofacial prostheses published between 2005 and 2015. English -language studies that directly compared different types of retention systems or presented information on implant survival, periimplant soft tissue reactions, and prosthetic complications were included. Nonclinical studies were excluded to eliminate bias. Results. A total to 173 studies were identified, of which 10 satisfied the inclusion criteria. In total, 492 participants were included in these studies. Four selected studies displayed detailed information with regard to the number of implant failures according to the retention system. As reported, 29 (18.2%) of 159 implants with magnets failed, whereas 25 (31.6%) of 79 implants with bars failed. Overall auricular superstructures showed the highest survival (99.08%). In addition, 55.4% of all participants in the selected studies showed grade 0 of periimplant soft tissue reactions. Conclusions. A systematic search for clinical studies resulted in few studies with a short-term follow-up and small number of participants. The limited data collected indicated that magnets show fewer complications than bar superstructures; however, no hard conclusions could be drawn. Further research, preferably in the form of clinical trials, is needed to validate these findings.
dc.description.indexMEDLINE
dc.identifier.citationJOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, v.117, n.2, p.321-326, 2017
dc.identifier.eissn1097-6841
dc.identifier.issn0022-3913
dc.identifier.urihttps://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/18725
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherMOSBY-ELSEVIER
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
dc.rightsrestrictedAccess
dc.rights.holderCopyright MOSBY-ELSEVIER
dc.subject.othersoft-tissue evaluation
dc.subject.otherquality-of-life
dc.subject.otherextraoral implants
dc.subject.othersurvival rates
dc.subject.otherosseointegrated implants
dc.subject.otherfollow-up
dc.subject.otherprosthetic complications
dc.subject.othercraniofacial prostheses
dc.subject.otherauricular prostheses
dc.subject.othertreatment outcomes
dc.subject.wosDentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine
dc.titleA systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets
dc.typearticle
dc.type.categoryreview
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dspace.entity.typePublication
hcfmusp.affiliation.countryHolanda
hcfmusp.affiliation.countryisonl
hcfmusp.author.externalBRANDAO, Thais Bianca:Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Med, ICESP, Dent Oncol Serv, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalVECHIATO FILHO, Aljomar Jose:Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Med, ICESP, Dent Oncol Serv, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalBATISTA, Victor Eduardo de Souza:Sao Paulo State Univ, Aracatuba Dent Sch, Dept Dent Mat & Prosthodont, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalOLIVEIRA, Maria Cecilia Querido de:Univ Sao Paulo, Fac Med, ICESP, Dent Oncol Serv, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalVISSER, Anita:Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Groningen, Netherlands
hcfmusp.author.externalSANTOS-SILVA, Alan Roger:Univ Estadual Campinas, Piracicaba Dent Sch, Dept Oral Diag, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.citation.scopus3
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcJOSE CARLOS MARQUES DE FARIA
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcGILBERTO DE CASTRO JUNIOR
hcfmusp.description.beginpage321
hcfmusp.description.endpage326
hcfmusp.description.issue2
hcfmusp.description.volume117
hcfmusp.origemWOS
hcfmusp.origem.pubmed27666496
hcfmusp.origem.scopus2-s2.0-84994472202
hcfmusp.origem.wosWOS:000393445200021
hcfmusp.publisher.cityNEW YORK
hcfmusp.publisher.countryUSA
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAbu-Serriah MM, 2003, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V32, P585, DOI 10.1054/ijom.2003.0429
hcfmusp.relation.referenceAydin C, 2008, INT J PROSTHODONT, V21, P241
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBalik A, 2016, J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V42, P41, DOI 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00086
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBrandao TB, 2016, J PROSTHET DENT, V115, P247, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.002
hcfmusp.relation.referenceChang TL, 2005, J PROSTHET DENT, V94, P275, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.06.002
hcfmusp.relation.referenceCuri MM, 2012, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V70, P1551, DOI 10.1016/j.joms.2012.03.011
hcfmusp.relation.referenceEthunandan M, 2010, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V39, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.01.003
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGarrett N, 2006, J PROSTHET DENT, V96, P13, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.05.010
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGranstrom G, 1994, INT J ORAL MAXILLOF, V9, P653
hcfmusp.relation.referenceIoannidis JPA, 2014, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V349, DOI 10.1136/bmj.g7089
hcfmusp.relation.referenceJadad AR, 1996, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V17, P1, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKarakoca S, 2010, J PROSTHET DENT, V103, P118, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60015-7
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKarakoca S, 2008, J PROSTHET DENT, V100, P458, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60265-6
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKarayazgan B, 2007, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V18, P1086
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKarayazgan-Saracoglu B, 2010, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V21, P751, DOI 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d8413a
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKorfage A, 2015, HEAD NECK-J SCI SPEC, V38, pE619
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLeonardi A, 2008, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V19, P398, DOI 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318163e443
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLUNDGREN S, 1993, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V22, P272, DOI 10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80514-4
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMiller SA, 2001, J EVID-BASED DENT PR, V1, P136
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMoher D, 2010, INT J SURG, V8, P336, DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNemli SK, 2013, J PROSTHET DENT, V109, P44, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60010-4
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNemli SK, 2010, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V21, P1178, DOI 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181e2083a
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNishimura RD, 1996, J PROSTHET DENT, V76, P597, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90436-9
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNISHIMURA RD, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P553, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80115-5
hcfmusp.relation.referencePekkan G, 2011, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V40, P378, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.12.001
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRaghoebar G M, 1994, J Invest Surg, V7, P283, DOI 10.3109/08941939409051146
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRoumanas ED, 2002, INT J PROSTHODONT, V15, P325
hcfmusp.relation.referenceRUBENSTEIN JE, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P262, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80203-3
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSchoen PJ, 2001, CANCER, V92, P3045, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20011215)92:12<3045::AID-CNCR10147>3.0.CO;2-K
hcfmusp.relation.referenceScolozzi P, 2004, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V114, P1395, DOI 10.1097/01.PRS.0000138595.86570.3E
hcfmusp.relation.referenceThiele OC, 2015, J CRANIO MAXILL SURG, V43, P1038, DOI 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.04.024
hcfmusp.relation.referenceTHOMAS KF, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P162, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80157-X
hcfmusp.relation.referenceToljanic Joseph A, 2005, J Prosthet Dent, V94, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.04.016
hcfmusp.relation.referenceTolman D E, 1996, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V11, P612
hcfmusp.relation.referenceValle VD, 1995, INT J ORAL MAXILLOF, V10, P491
hcfmusp.relation.referenceVisser A, 2008, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V23, P89
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWelch V, 2012, PLOS MED, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333
hcfmusp.scopus.lastupdate2024-05-10
relation.isAuthorOfPublicationf176b671-c4ff-435c-8681-3edd9d6e0a45
relation.isAuthorOfPublication0df25c0f-1337-424e-b0f7-41d0fccb51fc
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf176b671-c4ff-435c-8681-3edd9d6e0a45
Arquivos
Pacote Original
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Nome:
art_BRANDAO_A_systematic_comparison_of_barclips_versus_magnets_2017.PDF
Tamanho:
335.5 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
publishedVersion (English)
Baixar
Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/04
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/24