Loading…
Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews
Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present stud...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal patología oral y cirugía bucal, 2020-07, Vol.25 (4), p.e541-e548 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ecf766b1fe9ee8018b85363f80947ef0ff42e3cddb5f317609213f83df3ac3cd3 |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | e548 |
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | e541 |
| container_title | Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Sales, P-H Gomes, M-V Oliveira-Neto, O-B de Lima, F-J Leão, J-C |
| description | Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae.
Searches were conducted on Medline via Pubmed, LILACS, Dare Cochrane, Scopus, and Sigle via Open Grey up to June 2019.
Seven systematic reviews were eligible for Overview and comprised a total of 2313 patients, 4812 zygomatic implants, and a 96,72% success rate. Common surgical complications, in decreasing order, were: maxillary sinusitis, peri-implant mucositis, prosthetic fracture, and infections. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, which revealed that six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality.
Zygomatic implants seem to be an adequate option for atrophic maxilla rehabilitation, however, new studies with a higher methodological rigor are needed to provide more reliable results to professionals and patients undergoing this modality of oral rehabilitation. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.4317/medoral.23569 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7338062</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2412220523</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ecf766b1fe9ee8018b85363f80947ef0ff42e3cddb5f317609213f83df3ac3cd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUU1LAzEUDKJYrR69yh69bM3HbnbXgyDFLyiIoOeQZl_ayO6mJmmlgv_d1NZSwdMLeTOTzAxCZwQPMkaKyxZq62QzoCzn1R46IrwqU15lfH_n3EPH3r9hzApS8EPUYzSnuKL4CH09z2VjwjKR3oP3LXQhsTrxSx-glcGoxMHCwIePcyJdbbpJEqaQgNaggllAF1krxudyYtcE084a2QV_lcgusQtwK_7_oifoQMvGw-lm9tHr3e3L8CEdPd0_Dm9GqWJlEVJQuuB8TDRUACUm5bjMGWe6xFVWgMZaZxSYqutxrmMmPFojcctqzaSK96yPrte6s_k4Bqaiy5iZmDnTSrcUVhrxd9OZqZjYhSgYKzGnUeBiI-Ds-xx8EK3xCppoFOzcC5oRSinOKYvQdA1VznrvQG-fIVisKhObysRPZRF_vvu3Lfq3I_YNl2eZSA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2412220523</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews</title><source>Open Access: PubMed Central</source><creator>Sales, P-H ; Gomes, M-V ; Oliveira-Neto, O-B ; de Lima, F-J ; Leão, J-C</creator><creatorcontrib>Sales, P-H ; Gomes, M-V ; Oliveira-Neto, O-B ; de Lima, F-J ; Leão, J-C</creatorcontrib><description>Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae.
Searches were conducted on Medline via Pubmed, LILACS, Dare Cochrane, Scopus, and Sigle via Open Grey up to June 2019.
Seven systematic reviews were eligible for Overview and comprised a total of 2313 patients, 4812 zygomatic implants, and a 96,72% success rate. Common surgical complications, in decreasing order, were: maxillary sinusitis, peri-implant mucositis, prosthetic fracture, and infections. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, which revealed that six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality.
Zygomatic implants seem to be an adequate option for atrophic maxilla rehabilitation, however, new studies with a higher methodological rigor are needed to provide more reliable results to professionals and patients undergoing this modality of oral rehabilitation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1698-6946</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1698-4447</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1698-6946</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4317/medoral.23569</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32520920</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Spain: Medicina Oral S.L</publisher><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous ; Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Jaw, Edentulous - surgery ; Maxilla - surgery ; Maxillary Sinusitis ; Review ; Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><ispartof>Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal, 2020-07, Vol.25 (4), p.e541-e548</ispartof><rights>Copyright: © 2020 Medicina Oral S.L. 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ecf766b1fe9ee8018b85363f80947ef0ff42e3cddb5f317609213f83df3ac3cd3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338062/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7338062/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,733,786,790,891,27957,27958,53827,53829</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32520920$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sales, P-H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomes, M-V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliveira-Neto, O-B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Lima, F-J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leão, J-C</creatorcontrib><title>Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews</title><title>Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal</title><addtitle>Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal</addtitle><description>Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae.
Searches were conducted on Medline via Pubmed, LILACS, Dare Cochrane, Scopus, and Sigle via Open Grey up to June 2019.
Seven systematic reviews were eligible for Overview and comprised a total of 2313 patients, 4812 zygomatic implants, and a 96,72% success rate. Common surgical complications, in decreasing order, were: maxillary sinusitis, peri-implant mucositis, prosthetic fracture, and infections. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, which revealed that six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality.
Zygomatic implants seem to be an adequate option for atrophic maxilla rehabilitation, however, new studies with a higher methodological rigor are needed to provide more reliable results to professionals and patients undergoing this modality of oral rehabilitation.</description><subject>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Jaw, Edentulous - surgery</subject><subject>Maxilla - surgery</subject><subject>Maxillary Sinusitis</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Systematic Reviews as Topic</subject><issn>1698-6946</issn><issn>1698-4447</issn><issn>1698-6946</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNptUU1LAzEUDKJYrR69yh69bM3HbnbXgyDFLyiIoOeQZl_ayO6mJmmlgv_d1NZSwdMLeTOTzAxCZwQPMkaKyxZq62QzoCzn1R46IrwqU15lfH_n3EPH3r9hzApS8EPUYzSnuKL4CH09z2VjwjKR3oP3LXQhsTrxSx-glcGoxMHCwIePcyJdbbpJEqaQgNaggllAF1krxudyYtcE084a2QV_lcgusQtwK_7_oifoQMvGw-lm9tHr3e3L8CEdPd0_Dm9GqWJlEVJQuuB8TDRUACUm5bjMGWe6xFVWgMZaZxSYqutxrmMmPFojcctqzaSK96yPrte6s_k4Bqaiy5iZmDnTSrcUVhrxd9OZqZjYhSgYKzGnUeBiI-Ds-xx8EK3xCppoFOzcC5oRSinOKYvQdA1VznrvQG-fIVisKhObysRPZRF_vvu3Lfq3I_YNl2eZSA</recordid><startdate>20200701</startdate><enddate>20200701</enddate><creator>Sales, P-H</creator><creator>Gomes, M-V</creator><creator>Oliveira-Neto, O-B</creator><creator>de Lima, F-J</creator><creator>Leão, J-C</creator><general>Medicina Oral S.L</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200701</creationdate><title>Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews</title><author>Sales, P-H ; Gomes, M-V ; Oliveira-Neto, O-B ; de Lima, F-J ; Leão, J-C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ecf766b1fe9ee8018b85363f80947ef0ff42e3cddb5f317609213f83df3ac3cd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Dental Implantation, Endosseous</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Jaw, Edentulous - surgery</topic><topic>Maxilla - surgery</topic><topic>Maxillary Sinusitis</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Systematic Reviews as Topic</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sales, P-H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomes, M-V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oliveira-Neto, O-B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>de Lima, F-J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leão, J-C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sales, P-H</au><au>Gomes, M-V</au><au>Oliveira-Neto, O-B</au><au>de Lima, F-J</au><au>Leão, J-C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews</atitle><jtitle>Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal</jtitle><addtitle>Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal</addtitle><date>2020-07-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>e541</spage><epage>e548</epage><pages>e541-e548</pages><issn>1698-6946</issn><issn>1698-4447</issn><eissn>1698-6946</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-2</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-3</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><notes>ObjectType-Review-1</notes><abstract>Oral rehabilitation of atrophic maxillae features high complexity, for which there are several therapeutic modalities reported on scientific literature. Zygomatic implant placement is a viable option that features low morbidity and allows immediate prosthetic loading. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methodological quality of systematic reviews that assessed the effectiveness of zygomatic implants placed in atrophic maxillae.
Searches were conducted on Medline via Pubmed, LILACS, Dare Cochrane, Scopus, and Sigle via Open Grey up to June 2019.
Seven systematic reviews were eligible for Overview and comprised a total of 2313 patients, 4812 zygomatic implants, and a 96,72% success rate. Common surgical complications, in decreasing order, were: maxillary sinusitis, peri-implant mucositis, prosthetic fracture, and infections. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool, which revealed that six systematic reviews showed critically low methodological quality and one review was assessed as of low methodological quality.
Zygomatic implants seem to be an adequate option for atrophic maxilla rehabilitation, however, new studies with a higher methodological rigor are needed to provide more reliable results to professionals and patients undergoing this modality of oral rehabilitation.</abstract><cop>Spain</cop><pub>Medicina Oral S.L</pub><pmid>32520920</pmid><doi>10.4317/medoral.23569</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1698-6946 |
| ispartof | Medicina oral, patología oral y cirugía bucal, 2020-07, Vol.25 (4), p.e541-e548 |
| issn | 1698-6946 1698-4447 1698-6946 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7338062 |
| source | Open Access: PubMed Central |
| subjects | Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Implants Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Follow-Up Studies Humans Jaw, Edentulous - surgery Maxilla - surgery Maxillary Sinusitis Review Systematic Reviews as Topic |
| title | Quality assessment of systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of zygomatic implants: an overview of systematic reviews |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-21T17%3A37%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Quality%20assessment%20of%20systematic%20reviews%20regarding%20the%20effectiveness%20of%20zygomatic%20implants:%20an%20overview%20of%20systematic%20reviews&rft.jtitle=Medicina%20oral,%20patolog%C3%ADa%20oral%20y%20cirug%C3%ADa%20bucal&rft.au=Sales,%20P-H&rft.date=2020-07-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=e541&rft.epage=e548&rft.pages=e541-e548&rft.issn=1698-6946&rft.eissn=1698-6946&rft_id=info:doi/10.4317/medoral.23569&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2412220523%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-ecf766b1fe9ee8018b85363f80947ef0ff42e3cddb5f317609213f83df3ac3cd3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2412220523&rft_id=info:pmid/32520920&rfr_iscdi=true |