Loading…

Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review

Aims This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant‐prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP. Methods and Results A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Special care in dentistry 2022-01, Vol.42 (1), p.60-72
Main Authors: Anitua, Eduardo, Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan, Piñas, Laura, Torre, Aintzane, Eguia, Asier
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
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-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243
container_end_page 72
container_issue 1
container_start_page 60
container_title Special care in dentistry
container_volume 42
creator Anitua, Eduardo
Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan
Piñas, Laura
Torre, Aintzane
Eguia, Asier
description Aims This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant‐prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP. Methods and Results A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “which implant‐prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?”. The study was pre‐registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the “Newcastle‐Ottawa scale” and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant‐prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow‐up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses. Conclusion The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).
doi_str_mv 10.1111/scd.12629
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550263738</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2616797895</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMoWqsLX0AG3OhiNJfJJHFX6q1QcKHiMmTSMzQy09ZJxtKdj-Az-iSmTnUheDY5kO_8_HwIHRF8TuJceDs5JzSnagv1iOBZmnHMt1EPU8FTIoXaQ_vev2DMCKF0F-2xjGacCNpDz6N6UZlZ-Hz_WDRzH6YQnE1CAybUMAuJmyULE1xcfbJ0YZrMG1MllbNTiD_xsvWXySDxKx-gNuvbBt4cLA_QTmkqD4ebt4-ebq4fh3fp-P52NByMU8s4UylYrpQUeYklLg3jQLgQuCxVYSUTEgpsSUGJIixjJZVESMaJsRNj84IBzVgfnXa5sf1rCz7o2nkLVWwG89ZryjmmORNMRvTkD_oyb5tZbKdpTnKhhFQ8UmcdZaMO30CpF42rTbPSBOu1bR1t62_bkT3eJLZFDZNf8kdvBC46YOkqWP2fpB-GV13kF-DxiVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2616797895</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review</title><source>Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Read and Publish Open Access 2024-2025 (reading list)</source><creator>Anitua, Eduardo ; Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan ; Piñas, Laura ; Torre, Aintzane ; Eguia, Asier</creator><creatorcontrib>Anitua, Eduardo ; Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan ; Piñas, Laura ; Torre, Aintzane ; Eguia, Asier</creatorcontrib><description>Aims This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant‐prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP. Methods and Results A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “which implant‐prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?”. The study was pre‐registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the “Newcastle‐Ottawa scale” and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant‐prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow‐up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses. Conclusion The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-1879</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1754-4505</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/scd.12629</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34245172</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Dental Implants ; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported ; Design ; Humans ; implant survival ; Lichen planus ; Lichen Planus, Oral ; Oral lichen planus ; Patients ; Prostheses ; prosthesis ; Prosthetics ; Systematic review ; Transplants &amp; implants</subject><ispartof>Special care in dentistry, 2022-01, Vol.42 (1), p.60-72</ispartof><rights>2021 Special Care Dentistry Association and Wiley Periodicals LLC</rights><rights>2021 Special Care Dentistry Association and Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><rights>2022 Special Care Dentistry Association and Wiley Periodicals LLC</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7225-5131</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245172$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Anitua, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piñas, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torre, Aintzane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eguia, Asier</creatorcontrib><title>Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review</title><title>Special care in dentistry</title><addtitle>Spec Care Dentist</addtitle><description>Aims This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant‐prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP. Methods and Results A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “which implant‐prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?”. The study was pre‐registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the “Newcastle‐Ottawa scale” and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant‐prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow‐up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses. Conclusion The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).</description><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>implant survival</subject><subject>Lichen planus</subject><subject>Lichen Planus, Oral</subject><subject>Oral lichen planus</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>prosthesis</subject><subject>Prosthetics</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Transplants &amp; implants</subject><issn>0275-1879</issn><issn>1754-4505</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtKAzEUhoMoWqsLX0AG3OhiNJfJJHFX6q1QcKHiMmTSMzQy09ZJxtKdj-Az-iSmTnUheDY5kO_8_HwIHRF8TuJceDs5JzSnagv1iOBZmnHMt1EPU8FTIoXaQ_vev2DMCKF0F-2xjGacCNpDz6N6UZlZ-Hz_WDRzH6YQnE1CAybUMAuJmyULE1xcfbJ0YZrMG1MllbNTiD_xsvWXySDxKx-gNuvbBt4cLA_QTmkqD4ebt4-ebq4fh3fp-P52NByMU8s4UylYrpQUeYklLg3jQLgQuCxVYSUTEgpsSUGJIixjJZVESMaJsRNj84IBzVgfnXa5sf1rCz7o2nkLVWwG89ZryjmmORNMRvTkD_oyb5tZbKdpTnKhhFQ8UmcdZaMO30CpF42rTbPSBOu1bR1t62_bkT3eJLZFDZNf8kdvBC46YOkqWP2fpB-GV13kF-DxiVw</recordid><startdate>202201</startdate><enddate>202201</enddate><creator>Anitua, Eduardo</creator><creator>Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan</creator><creator>Piñas, Laura</creator><creator>Torre, Aintzane</creator><creator>Eguia, Asier</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</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>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7225-5131</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202201</creationdate><title>Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review</title><author>Anitua, Eduardo ; Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan ; Piñas, Laura ; Torre, Aintzane ; Eguia, Asier</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>implant survival</topic><topic>Lichen planus</topic><topic>Lichen Planus, Oral</topic><topic>Oral lichen planus</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>prosthesis</topic><topic>Prosthetics</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Transplants &amp; implants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Anitua, Eduardo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Piñas, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torre, Aintzane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eguia, Asier</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Special care in dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Anitua, Eduardo</au><au>Alkhraisat, Mohammad Hamdan</au><au>Piñas, Laura</au><au>Torre, Aintzane</au><au>Eguia, Asier</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>Special care in dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>Spec Care Dentist</addtitle><date>2022-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>60</spage><epage>72</epage><pages>60-72</pages><issn>0275-1879</issn><eissn>1754-4505</eissn><abstract>Aims This review is aiming on identifying the ideal implant‐prosthetic treatment design in patients with OLP. Methods and Results A systematic review was conducted using four electronic databases; Medline (PubMed), Cochrane library, DOAJ and SCOPUS, following the PRISMA statement recommendations to answer the PICO question: “which implant‐prosthetic treatment design is most useful to ensure implant survival in OLP patients?”. The study was pre‐registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020220102). Included articles quality was assessed using the “Newcastle‐Ottawa scale” and the JBI critical appraisal tool for case series. No article was found specifically designed to analyze the prosthetic influence on implant survival in OLP patients. Despite, information about implant‐prostheses in studies designed with other goals was compiled. Eight articles that involved 141 patients and 341 implants were finally selected. The weighted mean follow‐up was 38 months and the weighted mean survival of the implants 98.9%. No statistical differences were observed between cemented or screw retained prostheses and the materials employed or the technology to manufacture the prostheses. Conclusion The influence of prosthetic design on implant survival in OLP patients is still poorly understood, but important clinical recommendations can be drawn. The strength of evidence was grade 3b (CEBM) or low (GRADE).</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>34245172</pmid><doi>10.1111/scd.12629</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7225-5131</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0275-1879
ispartof Special care in dentistry, 2022-01, Vol.42 (1), p.60-72
issn 0275-1879
1754-4505
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550263738
source Wiley:Jisc Collections:Wiley Read and Publish Open Access 2024-2025 (reading list)
subjects Dental Implants
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Design
Humans
implant survival
Lichen planus
Lichen Planus, Oral
Oral lichen planus
Patients
Prostheses
prosthesis
Prosthetics
Systematic review
Transplants & implants
title Implant‐prosthetic treatment in patients with oral lichen planus: A systematic review
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T08%3A17%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Implant%E2%80%90prosthetic%20treatment%20in%20patients%20with%20oral%20lichen%20planus:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=Special%20care%20in%20dentistry&rft.au=Anitua,%20Eduardo&rft.date=2022-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=60&rft.epage=72&rft.pages=60-72&rft.issn=0275-1879&rft.eissn=1754-4505&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/scd.12629&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2616797895%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3539-ec599876f080fa35e15770ff9bc8378eb0c1b2191343f28178351acdac6b3e243%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2616797895&rft_id=info:pmid/34245172&rfr_iscdi=true