Alveolar ridge preservation: an overview of systematic reviews |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain;2. IDIBELL Institute, Barcelona, Spain;1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, Egypt;2. Surgical Oncology, Mansoura Oncology Centre, Mansoura Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura, Egypt;3. Department of Diagnosis and Oral Radiology, Mansoura Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura, Egypt;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Universitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany;2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Knappschaftskrankenhaus Bochum, Bochum, Germany;1. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, S.C.B. Dental College & Hospital, Cuttack Odisha, India;2. Department of Preventive & Social Medicine, S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack Odisha, India;1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hainan Western Central Hospital, Danzhou, Hainan, China;3. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial & Head and Neck Oncology, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China;4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The aim of this overview was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation after a tooth extraction. During March 2020, two independent reviewers performed an electronic search of the PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify all relevant systematic reviews including randomized clinical trials on alveolar ridge preservation. A manual search of articles in renowned journals was also conducted. The methodological quality of the included reviews was determined using the AMSTAR-2 tool. From the 53 initially retrieved studies, 11 were finally included: three systematic reviews and eight systematic reviews with meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the included reviews was low or critically low. Higher quality clinical studies should be conducted prior to performing further reviews and these should meet the methodological requirements that are fundamental to this type of research. |
| |
| Keywords: | alveolar bone loss alveolar bone grafting bone substitutes tooth extraction systematic review |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
