1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Dental implants in growing patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND: Dental implants provide a suitable and reliable treatment for the replacement of missing teeth. Very few studies have been reported in the literature regarding the application of dental implants in growing and developing patients. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to systematically review the available literature regarding the application of dental implants in growing and developing patients. METHODS: A detailed search in the literature was performed with the help of keywords such as dental implants, treatment planning, children, adolescents, growing patients, and developing jaws. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences, and Ovidsp databases were searched for papers published between 1980 and 2021. The papers focused on children, adolescents, developing jaws, and implants. In this systemic review, the dataset concerned with the type of study, aim, number of patients and specimens included, age of patients, total number of implants placed, total number of implants evaluated, medical history of developmental disorders of teeth such as ectodermal dysplasia, congenital absence of teeth, were evaluated. RESULTS: Out of the total literature searched, 33.45% of studies and case reports documented no complications in any implant treatment. In 47.21% of studies and case reports, there was both success and failure of implants while in 13.21% of studies and case reports there was a complete failure of implants. The most common cause for loss of permanent teeth in growing children and adolescent patients was dental trauma (73.13%) followed by congenital developmental disturbance of teeth (18.19%). CONCLUSION: It can be concluded from this systematic review that the use of implants in edentulous growing patients is determined by several parameters, including the patient’s overall health, the stage of jaw growth, the number of teeth to be replaced, and soft and hard tissue anatomic features. Still, the use of a conservative treatment strategy for missing teeth management in patients with developing jaws is common and recommended until the patient’s growth is completed, as there are chances of changes in the position of dental implants placed in the developing and growing jaws due to the continuous changes taking place in their body. However, placement of implants can be done in these patients successfully with proper treatment planning and taking into account the phase of growth with proper follow-up.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

          Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

              Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Technology and Health Care
                THC
                09287329
                18787401
                May 12 2023
                May 12 2023
                : 31
                : 3
                : 1051-1064
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Periodontics, Department of Periodontics and Community Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
                [2 ]Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
                Article
                10.3233/THC-220581
                e0c87f48-3a57-4b3b-9afe-566dfaf61850
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article