A systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_BRANDAO_A_systematic_comparison_of_barclips_versus_magnets_2017.PDF (335.5 KB)
Citações na Scopus
3
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2017
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
MOSBY-ELSEVIER
Autores
BRANDAO, Thais Bianca
VECHIATO FILHO, Aljomar Jose
BATISTA, Victor Eduardo de Souza
OLIVEIRA, Maria Cecilia Querido de
VISSER, Anita
SANTOS-SILVA, Alan Roger
Citação
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, v.117, n.2, p.321-326, 2017
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Statement 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.
Palavras-chave
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/18725
Referências
  1. Abu-Serriah MM, 2003, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V32, P585, DOI 10.1054/ijom.2003.0429
  2. Aydin C, 2008, INT J PROSTHODONT, V21, P241
  3. Balik A, 2016, J ORAL IMPLANTOL, V42, P41, DOI 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-14-00086
  4. Brandao TB, 2016, J PROSTHET DENT, V115, P247, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.002
  5. Chang TL, 2005, J PROSTHET DENT, V94, P275, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.06.002
  6. Curi MM, 2012, J ORAL MAXIL SURG, V70, P1551, DOI 10.1016/j.joms.2012.03.011
  7. Ethunandan M, 2010, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V39, P343, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.01.003
  8. Garrett N, 2006, J PROSTHET DENT, V96, P13, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.05.010
  9. Granstrom G, 1994, INT J ORAL MAXILLOF, V9, P653
  10. Ioannidis JPA, 2014, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V349, DOI 10.1136/bmj.g7089
  11. Jadad AR, 1996, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V17, P1, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  12. Karakoca S, 2010, J PROSTHET DENT, V103, P118, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60015-7
  13. Karakoca S, 2008, J PROSTHET DENT, V100, P458, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60265-6
  14. Karayazgan B, 2007, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V18, P1086
  15. Karayazgan-Saracoglu B, 2010, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V21, P751, DOI 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d8413a
  16. Korfage A, 2015, HEAD NECK-J SCI SPEC, V38, pE619
  17. LANDIS JR, 1977, BIOMETRICS, V33, P159, DOI 10.2307/2529310
  18. Leonardi A, 2008, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V19, P398, DOI 10.1097/SCS.0b013e318163e443
  19. LUNDGREN S, 1993, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V22, P272, DOI 10.1016/S0901-5027(05)80514-4
  20. Miller SA, 2001, J EVID-BASED DENT PR, V1, P136
  21. Moher D, 2010, INT J SURG, V8, P336, DOI 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
  22. Nemli SK, 2013, J PROSTHET DENT, V109, P44, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60010-4
  23. Nemli SK, 2010, J CRANIOFAC SURG, V21, P1178, DOI 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181e2083a
  24. Nishimura RD, 1996, J PROSTHET DENT, V76, P597, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90436-9
  25. NISHIMURA RD, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P553, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80115-5
  26. Pekkan G, 2011, INT J ORAL MAX SURG, V40, P378, DOI 10.1016/j.ijom.2010.12.001
  27. Raghoebar G M, 1994, J Invest Surg, V7, P283, DOI 10.3109/08941939409051146
  28. Roumanas ED, 2002, INT J PROSTHODONT, V15, P325
  29. RUBENSTEIN JE, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P262, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80203-3
  30. Schoen PJ, 2001, CANCER, V92, P3045, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(20011215)92:12<3045::AID-CNCR10147>3.0.CO;2-K
  31. Scolozzi P, 2004, PLAST RECONSTR SURG, V114, P1395, DOI 10.1097/01.PRS.0000138595.86570.3E
  32. Thiele OC, 2015, J CRANIO MAXILL SURG, V43, P1038, DOI 10.1016/j.jcms.2015.04.024
  33. THOMAS KF, 1995, J PROSTHET DENT, V73, P162, DOI 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80157-X
  34. Toljanic Joseph A, 2005, J Prosthet Dent, V94, P177, DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.04.016
  35. Tolman D E, 1996, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V11, P612
  36. Valle VD, 1995, INT J ORAL MAXILLOF, V10, P491
  37. Visser A, 2008, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V23, P89
  38. Welch V, 2012, PLOS MED, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333

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