ABSTRACT
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the association between periodontal disease and prostate inflammation with a null hypothesis stating that periodontal disease does not increase the incidence of prostate inflammation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of longitudinal observational cohort and case-control studies that evaluated the odds ratio or hazard ratio and confidence interval was undertaken based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations (2020). A total of four databases were consulted in the literature search: PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. After eliminating duplicated articles and applying the inclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for the qualitative and quantitative analyses. RESULTS: Four observational cohort studies and three observational cohort case-control studies were included in the meta-analysis. The four observational cohort studies were combined using the random effects model to estimate a hazard ratio of 1.32 with a confidence interval of 95% between 0.87 and 1.77. The meta-analysis presented high heterogeneity (Q test = 56.1; p value < 0.001; I2 = 94.9%). Moreover, the three observational case-control studies were combined using the random effects model to estimate an odds ratio of 1.62 with a confidence interval of 95% between 1.41 and 1.84. The meta-analysis presented high heterogeneity (Q test = 1.07; p value = 0.782; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of periodontal disease does not increase the risk of the incidence of prostate inflammation.
ABSTRACT
La estabilidad primaria es un requisito importante para la supervivencia y éxito de los implantes durante la osteointegración. En los últimos años, los implantes inmediatos postextracción han demostrado ser una opción de tratamiento exitosa y predecible para la reposición de dientes con mal pronóstico, pero surge la duda de si dichos implantes alcanzan valores de estabilidad primaria comparables a aquellos colocados en hueso maduro. Comparar la estabilidad primaria de implantes inmediatos colocados en alveolos postextracción con la de implantes colocados en hueso maduro. Se llevó a cabo un estudio clínico retrospectivo, con los datos recogidos sobre 175 implantes, colocados en 175 pacientes. Todos los implantes colocados pertenecían al modelo Essential Cone (Klockner Implant System) y se dividieron en dos grupos: implantes inmediatos (Grupo A, n=31) e implantes colocados en hueso maduro (Grupo B, n=144). La estabilidad primaria de todos los implantes se midió mediante torque de inserción y análisis de frecuencia de resonancia con Osstell ISQ. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas respecto a la estabilidad medida a través del torque de inserción (26,29+10,07 Vs 25,76+9,72 N/cm) pero sí que se encontraron diferencias significativas en la medida de la estabilidad primaria mediante AFR, siendo inferiores los valores correspondientes a los implantes colocados en los alveolos post exodoncia (60,74 ± 6,17 en sentido VL y 62,19 ± 7.64 en sentido MD frente a 68,34 ± 6.26 en sentido VL y 69,29 ± 7.98 en sentido MD obtenidos en los implantes colocados en hueso maduro). El torque de inserción de los implantes inmediatos es similar al de los implantes colocados en hueso maduro, pero sus valores ISQ son significativamente inferiores, lo que demuestra un mayor grado de micromovimiento, y por consiguiente, un mayor riesgo de fracaso durante el período de osteointegración.
Primary stability is an important requirement for the survival and success of implants during osseointegration. In recent years, immediate post-extraction implants have proven to be a successful and predictable treatment option for the replacement of teeth with a poor prognosis, but the question arises as to whether these implants reach primary stability values comparable to those placed in mature bone. The objective of the study was to compare the primary stability of immediate implants placed in post-extraction alveoli with that of implants placed in mature bone. A retrospective clinical study was carried out, with data collected on 175 implants, placed in 175 patients. All implants placed belonged to the Essential Cone model (Klockner Implant System) and were divided into two groups: immediate implants (Group A, n = 31) and implants placed in mature bone (Group B, n = 144). The primary stability of all implants was measured by insertion torque and resonance frequency analysis with Osstell ISQ. No statistically significant differences were found regarding the stability measured through the insertion torque (26.29 + 10.07 Vs 25.76 + 9.72 N / cm) but significant differences were found in the measurement of primary stability by means of AFR, the values corresponding to implants placed in the post-exodontic alveoli being lower (60.74 ± 6.17 in the VL direction and 62.19 ± 7.64 in the MD direction versus 68.34 ± 6.26 in the VL direction and 69.29 ± 7.98 in the MD direction obtained in implants placed in mature bone). The insertion torque of immediate implants is similar to that of implants placed in mature bone, but their ISQ values are significantly lower, which demonstrates a higher degree of micromotion, and therefore, a greater risk of failure during the period of osseointegration.
