Vertical Ridge Gain with Various Bone Augmentation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 421-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Hasan Hameed ◽  
Meisha Gul ◽  
Robia Ghafoor ◽  
Farhan Raza Khan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Augmentation Techniques

scholarly journals Effects of lateral bone augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 18-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacio Sanz-Sánchez ◽  
Ana Carrillo de Albornoz ◽  
Elena Figuero ◽  
Frank Schwarz ◽  
Ronald Jung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bone Augmentation

scholarly journals What are the outcomes of core decompression in patients with avascular necrosis? Protocol for a systematic review

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Octavian Andronic ◽  
Haitham Shoman ◽  
Ori Weiss ◽  
Vikas Khanduja
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Femoral Head ◽  
Avascular Necrosis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Core Decompression ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Decompression Surgery ◽  
Surgical Methods ◽  
Staging Systems ◽  
Augmentation Techniques

Background: Core decompression is a hip preserving surgical procedure that is used to treat avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head. The eventual clinical and radiological outcome following this procedure is varied in literature. Also, the time to a total hip replacement (THR) from the index procedure and the percentage of patients subsequently undergoing a THR is controversial. Furthermore, there are multiple surgical methods along with multiple augmentation techniques and various classification and staging systems described. The purpose of this systematic review, therefore, is to analyse the outcomes following decompression only, excluding any augmentation techniques for non-traumatic AVN of the femoral head. Methods: This protocol is being developed in line with the PRISMA-P guidelines. The search strategy includes articles from Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, CINHAL and Cochrane library. The review and screening will be done by two independent reviewers. Review articles, editorials and correspondences will be excluded. Articles including patients with sickle cell disease and with core decompression where augmentation is used will be excluded. The risk of bias and quality of articles will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for the different study designs included. Discussion: This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles having patients with AVN of the femoral head and undergoing core decompression surgery only. The systematic review will then define the outcomes of the core decompression surgery based on clinical and radiological outcomes. Each outcome will include the different stages within it and finally, the total mean time to THR will be calculated. This will then be followed by assessing the cumulative confidence in evidence from all the data collected using the GRADE tool.   Registration: This systematic review is registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PROSPERO) under the registration number: CRD42018100596

scholarly journals Biologic Augmentation Reduces the Failure Rate of Meniscal Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596712098162
Author(s):  
Stefano Zaffagnini ◽  
Alberto Poggi ◽  
Davide Reale ◽  
Luca Andriolo ◽  
David C. Flanigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Augmentation Techniques

Background: Clinical results after isolated meniscal repair are not always satisfactory, with an overall failure rate of around 25%. To improve the success rate of meniscal repair, different biologic augmentation techniques have been introduced in clinical practice, but their real efficacy is still controversial. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate the safety, clinical results, and failure rate of biologic augmentation techniques for meniscal repair. The hypothesis was that biologic augmentation would improve the results of meniscal repair. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed in March 2020 of 3 electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library) regarding meniscal repair combined with biologic augmentation techniques. Articles combining biologic augmentation with other surgical procedures besides meniscal suture were excluded. The quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified Coleman Methodology Score, and the risk of bias was evaluated using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions) and the RoB 2.0 (Revised Tool for Risk of Bias in Randomized Trials) for nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials, respectively. Results: A total of 11 studies were included in the qualitative analysis: platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation in 6 comparatives studies, fibrin clot augmentation in 2 case series, and mesenchymal stem cells augmentation in 2 case series and 1 case report. One severe adverse event of septic arthritis was reported for PRP 1 month after surgery. The quality of evidence evaluated with the modified Coleman Methodology Score was low overall. Five studies reporting on 286 patients (111 PRP augmentation, 175 control) were included in the quantitative synthesis. A significantly lower risk of failure was documented in the PRP augmentation group as compared with the control group: 9.9% (4.5%-19.1%) versus 25.7% (12.7%-38.7%) ( P < .0005). Conclusion: The literature on biologic meniscal augmentation is recent and scarce. Only a few comparative trials are available, all focusing on the potential of PRP. The meta-analysis documented that PRP is safe and useful in improving the survival rate, with a 9.9% rate of failure versus 25.7% for the control group. Further high-level studies are needed to confirm these findings and identify the most effective biologic augmentation strategy to improve the outcome of meniscal repair.

scholarly journals Bone augmentation using autogenous bone versus biomaterial in the posterior region of atrophic mandibles: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 76 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecília Alves de Sousa ◽  
Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos ◽  
Joel Ferreira Santiago-Júnior ◽  
Leonardo Perez Faverani ◽  
Eduardo Piza Pellizzer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Posterior Region ◽  
Autogenous Bone ◽  
Bone Augmentation

scholarly journals Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 287-306 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadja Naenni ◽  
Hyun-Chang Lim ◽  
Spyridon N. Papageorgiou ◽  
Christoph H. F. Hämmerle
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation performed simultaneously with dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 ◽  
pp. 257-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel S. Thoma ◽  
Stefan P. Bienz ◽  
Elena Figuero ◽  
Ronald E. Jung ◽  
Ignacio Sanz-Martín
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Implant ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Implant Placement

scholarly journals The Use of Poly-d,l-lactic Acid (PDLLA) Devices for Bone Augmentation Techniques: A Systematic Review

Molecules ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (12) ◽  
pp. 2214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Annunziata ◽  
Livia Nastri ◽  
Gennaro Cecoro ◽  
Luigi Guida
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lactic Acid ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Augmentation Techniques
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document