Comparison of the effects of treatment of peri-implant infection in animal and human studies: systematic review and meta-analysis
Comparison of the effects of treatment of peri-implant infection in animal and human studies: systematic review and meta-analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01753.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-02-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Tu, Yu-Kang
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Faggion, Clovis Mariano, Jr.;Chambrone, Leandro;Tu, Yu-Kang
目的本系统综述的主要目的是比较动物和人类研究中种植体周围感染的治疗效果。材料和方法使用 Medline、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库以及拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献数据库（截至 2008 年 5 月）进行文献检索。此外，手动检索种植体周围疾病系统评价的参考书目。在动物模型或人体研究中比较了种植体周围炎/粘膜炎的非手术和手术治疗。进行荟萃分析以调查动物和人类研究中报告的治疗效果之间的差异。探测袋深度（PPD）和探测附着水平（PAL）相对于基线测量的变化被用作结果的测量。考虑到研究的不同随访时间，进行单水平和多水平荟萃回归分析。 结果单水平和多水平随机效应荟萃分析显示，动物和人类研究之间的 PPD 降低 [0.31 mm，95% CI：-0.27，0.88] 和 PAL 增益（0.21 mm，95% CI：-0.47，0.88）之间存在差异没有统计学意义。随机效应荟萃回归表明，随访时间较长的研究显示 PPD 降低幅度更大（每月 0.25 毫米，95% CI：0.14，0.35）。然而，当考虑到不同的随访时间时，这些差异变得更大。荟萃分析发现研究之间存在显着的异质性（动物研究的 I2=97.6%，人类研究的 I2=99.9%）。结论 人类和动物研究在研究设计和治疗程序方面存在很大的异质性。因此，应谨慎解释该荟萃分析的结果。研究之间的异质性及其原因值得进一步研究。引用本文：Faggion CM Jr, Chambrone L, Gondim V, Schmitter M, Tu Y-K。动物和人体研究中种植体周围感染治疗效果的比较：系统评价和荟萃分析。临床。口头实施。资源。 2010 年 21 日； 137-147.doi：10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01753.x。
ObjectiveThe main objective of this systematic review is to compare the effects of treatment of peri-implant infection between animal and human studies.Material and methodsA literature search was conducted using the Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases up to and including May 2008. In addition, bibliographies of systematic reviews on peri-implant diseases were searched manually. Non-surgical and surgical treatments of peri-implantitis/mucositis in animal models or human studies were compared. Meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the difference between the reported treatment effects in animal and human studies. Changes in probing pocket depth (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL) from baseline measurements were used as measures of outcome. Single-level and multilevel meta-regression analysis was performed by taking into account the different follow-up times of the studies included.ResultsThe single-level and multilevel random-effects meta-analysis showed that the difference in PPD reduction [0.31 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.27, 0.88] and in PAL gain (0.21 mm, 95% CI: -0.47, 0.88) between animal and human studies was not statistically significant. The random-effects meta-regression suggested that studies with longer follow-up times revealed greater PPD reduction (0.25 mm per month, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.35). However, when the different follow-up times were taken into account, these differences became greater. Substantial heterogeneity between studies was found in the meta-analyses (I2=97.6% for animal studies and 99.9% for human studies).ConclusionThere was great heterogeneity between human and animal studies in terms of study designs and treatment procedures. Therefore, the results from this meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Heterogeneity between studies and its causes merit further investigations.To cite this article:Faggion CM Jr, Chambrone L, Gondim V, Schmitter M, Tu Y-K. Comparison of the effects of treatment of peri-implant infection in animal and human studies: systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 137-147.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01753.x.