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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Special care in dentistry 2022-01, Vol.42 (1), p.60-72 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |