RESUMEN
Several regeneration techniques and materials have been proposed for the healing of bone defects after surgical endodontic treatment; however, the existing literature does not provide evidence on the most recommended techniques or materials. The aim of the present systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to summarize the clinical evidence on the efficacy of guided tissue regeneration techniques (GRTs). The PRISMA recommendations were followed. Four databases were searched up to December 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A fixed effects model and frequentist approach were used in the NMA. Direct GRT technique comparisons were combined to estimate indirect comparisons, and the estimated effect size of the comparisons was analyzed using the odds ratio (OR). Inconsistency was assessed with the Q test, with a significance level of p < 0.01, and a net heat plot. A total of 274 articles was identified, and 11 RCTs (6 direct comparisons of 15 techniques) were included in the NMA, which examined 6 GRT techniques: control, Os, PL, MB, MB + Os, and MB + PL. The MB + Os group compared to the control (OR = 3.67, 95% CI: 1.36-9.90) and to the MB group (OR = 3.47, 95% CI: 1.07-11.3) showed statistically significant ORs (p Ë 0.05). The MB + Os group presented the highest degree of certainly (P-score = 0.93).
RESUMEN
Aim: To compare the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic for the socket-shield technique and the conventional technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone. Material and methods: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis, based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, of clinical studies that evaluated the failure rate, marginal bone loss, and pink esthetic with the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement in the esthetic zone was performed. A total of 4 databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, 16 articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Results: Four randomized controlled trials, five prospective clinical studies, four retrospective studies, and three case series were included in the meta-analysis. The dental implant failure rate for the socket-shield technique for immediate dental implant placement was 1.37% (95% CI, 0.21-2.54%); however, no statistically significant differences between the conventional and socket-shield technique were found. The estimated mean difference in the marginal bone loss for the socket-shield technique was -0.5 mm (95% CI, -0.82 to -0.18) and statistically significant (p < 0.01), with a high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The mean pink esthetic score was 12.27 (Q test = 4.47; p-value = 0.61; I2 = 0%). The difference in pink esthetic between the conventional (n = 55) and socket-shield techniques (n = 55) for immediate dental implant placement was 1.15 (95% CI, 0.73-1.58; Q test = 8.88; p value = 0.11; I2 = 44%). The follow-up time was found to be significant (beta coefficient = 0.023; R2 = 85.6%; QM = 3.82; p = 0.049) for the PES for the socket-shield technique. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this systematic review with meta-analysis, the dental implant failure rate did not differ between the socket-shield technique and conventional technique for immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone. However, a lower marginal bone loss and higher pink esthetic scores were found for the socket-shield technique compared to the conventional technique.