Steel drills versus zirconia drills on heat generation at the surgical site of dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the difference in the heat generated between zirconia (Zr) and steel (SS) drills, during implant site preparation. Material and methods: This systematic review followed the PRISMA methodology criteria and used the JBI Critical Assessment Guidelines for Quasi-Experimental Studies for quality assessment. The electronic search was conducted by using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to January 2023. The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was "Do zirconia drills generate less heat than steel drills during implant site preparation?". The meta-analysis was based on an inverse variance (IV) method. Results: This review included 10 studies in vitro that used zirconia drills compared to steel drills with or without coatings. The meta-analysis indicated a significant difference between Zr drills and SS drills, with a lower bone temperature variation with Zr drills. Conclusions: Despite the limitations of this review, it was concluded that Zr drills had significantly less temperature variation than SS drills.

Are implant-supported removable partial dentures a suitable treatment for partially edentulous patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A consensus on the clinical performance of implant-supported removable partial dentures (ISRPDs) is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of ISRPDs in terms of the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) were independently searched by 2 reviewers for articles published up to December 2020. A single-arm meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the implant survival rates and marginal bone loss by using the R program. The Cochrane collaboration tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-RCT studies. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included, with a total of 334 participants and a mean age of 58 years. The participants received a total of 581 dental implants, 475 conventional and 106 mini-implants. All included studies reported implant survival rate above 90% (range: 92% to 100%). Meta-analysis indicated a high proportion of implant survival rates of 3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2% to 5%) and a low mean raw score of marginal bone loss 0.98 mm (CI: 0.61 to 1.36 mm). Compared with conventional RPDs, improved patient quality of life and satisfaction were reported by studies that evaluated ISRPDs. RCT studies exhibited a low risk of bias for most domains, while most non-RCT studies were classified as good quality. CONCLUSIONS: ISRPDs exhibited high implant survival rates and acceptable bone loss with improvement in the quality of life and satisfaction of patients when compared with conventional RPDs. Therefore, they can be considered suitable for the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients.

The influence of crown-to-implant ratio in single crowns on clinical outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A consensus about the effect of crown-to-implant (C/I) ratio in single crowns regarding the implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of C/I ratio in implant-supported single crowns on clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search was made in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42018095711). The focused question was "Does the crown-to-implant ratio influence clinical outcomes for implant-supported single crowns?" RESULTS: Five direct comparative studies were included (C/I ratio ≤1 or >1, or ≤2 or >2), including a total of 262 participants with a mean age of 54.5 years. The meta-analysis comparing C/I ratio between ≤1 or >1 revealed no significant differences (P=.18; risk difference:-0.05; 95% confidence interval: -0.11 to 0.02) in terms of implant survival rate; the same was true for C/I ratio between <2 or ≥2 (P=.05; risk difference:-0.06; 95% confidence interval: -0.12 to -0.00), both analysis were made with a mean follow-up period was 36 months. The mean MBL was calculated based in the qualitative data for each C/I ratio: ≤1 (0.15 mm [-0.34 to 0.34]); >1 (0.07 mm [-0.29 to 0.22]); <2 (1.32 mm [0.38-0.9]); and ≥2 (1.37 mm [-0.02 to 0.91]). The qualitative data reported that the most common mechanical complication was screw loosening, and the most common biological complication was peri-implantitis. CONCLUSIONS: The meta-analysis revealed no relationship between categories of C/I ratio for implant survival rate. The qualitative data also suggested that MBL increased as the C/I ratio increased.

Influence of vomer flap on craniofacial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate: A systematic review.

The aim of this review was to evaluate the impact of the vomer flap on craniofacial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate. The review was conducted according to the PRISMA checklist and is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO - CRD42018095714). Two investigators performed the research using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published until November 2018. The focused question was 'Does the vomer flap have a lesser impact on craniofacial growth in patients with cleft lip and palate?'. A total of 13 articles was selected for this review, comparing the vomer flap technique with other flap surgery techniques. The outcomes analyzed were: facial development (primary outcome); and the growth of the maxilla and mandible, occlusion, occurrence of fistula, and speech development (secondary outcomes). It was concluded that there is no difference in impact between vomer flap and the other flap surgery techniques on craniofacial development.