Evaluation of implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift done with the osseodensification and osteotome technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Whether the use of osseodensification burs for indirect sinus lift improves primary implant stability and bone height as compared with the osteotome technique to overcome the challenges of the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus and vertical bone loss after extraction in the edentulous posterior maxilla is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the difference in primary implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift using osseodensification and the osteotome technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases and the Google Scholar Search engine for randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials, and cross-sectional studies published from 2000 to 2022 to identify relevant studies evaluating the primary implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift using osseodensification and the osteotome technique. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the cumulative data on primary implant stability and increase in bone height. RESULTS: A total of 8521 titles were obtained by electronic database search, of which 75 were duplicates. A total of 8446 abstracts were screened, and 8411 that were not relevant to the topic were excluded. Thirty-five articles were eligible for full-text assessment. After the screening of full-text articles as per the selection criteria, 26 studies were excluded. For qualitative synthesis, 9 studies were included. For quantitative synthesis, 5 studies were included. For an increase in bone height, no statistically significant difference was observed (I2 = 89%, P=.15, pooled mean difference=0.30 [-0.11, 0.70], CI=95%). For primary implant stability, the osseodensification group showed higher values than the osteotome group (I2 = 20%, P<.001, pooled mean difference=10.61 [7.14, 14.08], CI=95%). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence obtained from quantitative analysis of the studies determined that the osseodensification group showed higher primary implant stability than the osteotome group (P<.05). However, for mean increase in bone height, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups.

Evaluation of marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cement-retained all-ceramic implant-supported crowns on zirconia abutment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated on zirconia abutment at different follow-up periods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Independent search was conducted in Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and PubMed/PubMed Central/MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine for prospective studies and randomized controlled trials published between January 2014 and June 2023 evaluating the marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cemented all-ceramic implant-supported crowns fabricated on zirconia abutment. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the quantitative data on the marginal bone level and biological complications. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included for qualitative synthesis and six studies for quantitative synthesis. For marginal bone level, no statistically significant difference was observed (P = 0.83 and P = 0.69, respectively) during the follow-up period of 3 years and 5 years. For probing depth, the cemented group showed more amount of probing depth than the screw-retained group at a follow-up period of 3 years (P < 0.05) whereas no statistically significant difference was observed at a follow-up period of 5 years (P = 0.73). For bleeding on probing, the cemented group showed more probing depth than the screw-retained group at a follow-up period of 5 years (P = 0.10). CONCLUSION: The evidence suggests that the screw-retained group showed no statistically significant difference in marginal bone level, comparatively fewer biological complications, and relatively higher technical complications than the cemented group at different follow-up periods.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of accuracy between protrusive interocclusal record and horizontal condylar guidance angle recording methods in dentulous patients.

AIM: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different methods used for measuring horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angle in comparison with protrusive interocclusal record (IOR) for dentulous patients. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: The design involves systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was carried out by two reviewers in the Google Scholar search engine and the EBSCO host, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases for quasi-experimental studies, in vivo studies, and cross-sectional studies published from January 2005 to February 2023 determining the HCG angle in dentulous patients. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the quantitative data. RESULTS: A total of 577 articles were identified, 29 analytical cross-sectional studies that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included for qualitative synthesis and 26 studies were included for meta-analysis. A statistically significant difference was observed for the right and left HCG angles obtained by the panoramic radiograph method and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) method and for the right side HCG angle obtained by cephalogram method showing higher values than the protrusive IOR method. No statistically significant difference was observed for the left side HCG angle obtained by the cephalogram method and both the right and left side HCG angles obtained by the intraoral tracer method. CONCLUSIONS: The panoramic radiograph, cephalogram, and CBCT obtained higher HCG angles in dentulous patients than the protrusive IOR method.

Evaluation of accuracy between extraoral Gothic arch tracing and various other methods assessing horizontal condylar guidance angle in completely edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the accuracy of different methods of measuring horizontal condylar guidance (HCG) angle in comparison with extraoral Gothic arch tracing for completely edentulous patients. Settings and Design: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Materials and Methods: Two reviewers searched the EBSCOhost, Cochrane Library, and PubMed/MEDLINE databases and the Google Scholar search engine for in vivo studies, randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and quasi-experimental studies published from January 2005 to December 2022 on various other methods of determining HCG angle in completely edentulous patients compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. Statistical Analysis Used: Meta-analysis was conducted from the reported quantitative data. Results: A total of 513 articles were obtained from different electronic databases, of which 22 studies were included for qualitative synthesis and 20 studies were included for meta-analysis. For the right side, a statistically significant difference was observed for panoramic radiograph (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 5.08 [2.17, 7]) and cephalogram (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 10.65 [8.81, 12.49]), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) (P = 0.41, pooled mean difference = 4.39 [-6.10, 14.87]) and protrusive interocclusal wax record (P = 0.92, pooled mean difference = -0.45 [-9.62, 8.72]) as compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. For the left side, a statistically significant difference was observed for panoramic radiograph (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 5.07 [1.95, 8.18]) and cephalogram (P < 0.05, pooled mean difference = 10.24 [8.65, 11.83]), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed for CBCT (P = 0.31, pooled mean difference = 4.05 [-3.74, 11.84]) and protrusive interocclusal wax record (P = 0.72, pooled mean difference = -1.21 [-7.86, 5.43]) as compared with extraoral Gothic arch tracing method. Conclusion: The cephalogram and panoramic radiograph obtained higher HCG angles in completely edentulous patients than extraoral Gothic arch tracing.