Kaihui Peng1, Yueping Zhou2, Yinhua Dai1, Qianxia Wang1, Yujiao Hu1, Qun Dai3. 1. Department of General Emergency, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China; The Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Nanchang, China. 2. School of Public Health, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China; Jiangxi Key Laboratory of Preventive Medicine, Nanchang, China. 3. Department of General Emergency, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China; The Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedicine, Nanchang, China. 512968304@qq.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dentition defect is a common symptom in clinical dental patients. This study compared the clinical effects of denture restoration and dental implant restoration in the treatment of dentition defects through meta-analysis. METHODS: Data retrieval was conducted through the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. A total of 479 related literatures published in English or Chinese from 2013 to 2020 were included. Literature screening, data extraction and comprehensive evaluation, and analysis by meta-analysis was performed by 3 authors. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies and 1,459 patients were included. Among the 17 studies, the effective rate of treatment between the two groups was compared and the experimental group rate was significantly higher than that of the control group [odds ratio (OR) =6.149, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.103-9.215, P<0.001]; the mastication function score was compared, and was higher in the experimental group than in the control group [standardized mean difference (SMD) =1.632, 95% CI: 1.039-2.224, P<0.001]; the retention function score was compared, and was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (SMD =1.775, 95% CI: 1.095-2.455), P<0.001); the aesthetics score was also compared, and was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (SMD =1.300, 95% CI: 0.499-2.100, P=0.001). Among 17 studies, 15 compared the comfort score, which was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (SMD =1.357, 95% CI: 0.455-2.258, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with denture restoration, dental implant restoration is more effective in the treatment of dentition defect with a higher comprehensive score of functional restoration.
BACKGROUND:Dentition defect is a common symptom in clinical dental patients. This study compared the clinical effects of denture restoration and dental implant restoration in the treatment of dentition defects through meta-analysis. METHODS: Data retrieval was conducted through the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. A total of 479 related literatures published in English or Chinese from 2013 to 2020 were included. Literature screening, data extraction and comprehensive evaluation, and analysis by meta-analysis was performed by 3 authors. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies and 1,459 patients were included. Among the 17 studies, the effective rate of treatment between the two groups was compared and the experimental group rate was significantly higher than that of the control group [odds ratio (OR) =6.149, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.103-9.215, P<0.001]; the mastication function score was compared, and was higher in the experimental group than in the control group [standardized mean difference (SMD) =1.632, 95% CI: 1.039-2.224, P<0.001]; the retention function score was compared, and was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (SMD =1.775, 95% CI: 1.095-2.455), P<0.001); the aesthetics score was also compared, and was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (SMD =1.300, 95% CI: 0.499-2.100, P=0.001). Among 17 studies, 15 compared the comfort score, which was higher in the experimental group than in the control group (SMD =1.357, 95% CI: 0.455-2.258, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with denture restoration, dental implant restoration is more effective in the treatment of dentition defect with a higher comprehensive score of functional restoration.
Authors: Yang Bai; Lin Wang; Lisheng Zhao; E Lingling; Shuo Yang; Shunyi Jia; Ning Wen Journal: Comput Math Methods Med Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 2.238