MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224130512 · doi:10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101731

EFFECT OF AUTOGENOUS BONE GRAFT SITE ON DENTAL IMPLANT SURVIVAL AND DONOR SITE COMPLICATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2022· review· en· W4224130512 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerald McKenna, Harald Gjengedal, JENNIFER HARKIN, Nicola Holland, Ciarán Moore, Murali Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evidence Based Dental Practice · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Health Agency
KeywordsMedicineIliac crestDentistryMeta-analysisImplantDental implantOsseointegrationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to answer the following focus questions: Is the implant survival in augmented bone utilizing iliac crest bone grafts the same as while using intraoral autologous bone grafts? Is the incidence of postoperative donor site complications the same when using iliac crest bone grafts as opposed to intraoral grafts? METHODS: Systematic searches of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL) were performed to identify studies which reported on implant survival and postoperative complications for dental implants placed in grafted partially/completely edentulous human jaws. Studies were included if: they reported on 2-piece micro-rough surface root form dental implants placed in bone-augmented completely or partially edentulous human jaws, and the jaws must have been augmented with autologous bone graft materials. Time and nature of postoperative complications must have been reported. Two investigators performed data extraction and a Cohen's unweighted kappa was calculated for inter-investigator reliability. A meta-analysis was performed for the extracted data on implant survival rate in both iliac crest grafts and intra-oral grafts. A qualitative analysis was performed on the information extracted on graft donor site complications. Quality assessment of the included studies were done using the Cochrane collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scales. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies were included in the final analysis. The calculated kappa ranged between 0.77-0.89 for the literature search and identification process. Fourteen studies were included with data on implant survival including five randomized controlled clinical trials. The meta-analysis of included studies revealed that the implant survival rate of dental implants placed in jaws augmented with iliac crest grafts was lower than those placed in jaws augmented with intra-oral bone grafts at 6-months [ICG = 95.8% IOG = 98.4%; P < .001], 12-months [ICG = 97.0%, IOG = 98.4%; P < .001], 24-months [ICG = 85.9%, IOG = 98.2%; P < .001], 60-months [ICG = 90.0%, IOG = 91.5%; P < .001], and at 120-months [ICG = 88.8%, IOG = 95.2%; P < .001] follow-up periods. Iliac crest grafts were also frequently associated with donor site complications including pain / discomfort, gait disturbance, and sensory disturbance. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that implant survival is consistently higher in bone harvested from intraoral sites compared to iliac crest grafts. Donor site complications seemed to be a frequent finding with iliac crest grafts and mental grafts. FUNDING: None. REGISTRATION: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42021283738).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.043
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evidence Based Dental PracticeSame topicDental Implant Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207