A systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets

Registro completo de metadados
MetadadosDescriçãoIdioma
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversidade de São Paulo (USP)-
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)-
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversity of Groningen-
Autor(es): dc.contributorUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)-
Autor(es): dc.creatorBrandão, Thais Bianca-
Autor(es): dc.creatorVechiato Filho, Aljomar José-
Autor(es): dc.creatorde Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo-
Autor(es): dc.creatorde Oliveira, Maria Cecília Querido-
Autor(es): dc.creatorVisser, Anita-
Autor(es): dc.creatorde Faria, José Carlos Marques-
Autor(es): dc.creatorJúnior, Gilberto de Castro-
Autor(es): dc.creatorSantos-Silva, Alan Roger-
Data de aceite: dc.date.accessioned2025-08-21T22:48:03Z-
Data de disponibilização: dc.date.available2025-08-21T22:48:03Z-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2022-04-29-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2022-04-29-
Data de envio: dc.date.issued2017-02-01-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.020-
Fonte completa do material: dc.identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/11449/228242-
Fonte: dc.identifier.urihttp://educapes.capes.gov.br/handle/11449/228242-
Descrição: dc.descriptionStatement of problem Currently, which type of suprastructure is preferred when fabricating implant-retained craniofacial prostheses is unknown. Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the best retention system (bar-clips versus magnets) for implant-retained craniofacial prostheses. Material and methods This systematic review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A systematic search of Medline/PubMed and Web of Science databases for clinical trials was conducted on implant-retained craniofacial prostheses published between 2005 and 2015. English-language studies that directly compared different types of retention systems or presented information on implant survival, periimplant soft tissue reactions, and prosthetic complications were included. Nonclinical studies were excluded to eliminate bias. Results A total to 173 studies were identified, of which 10 satisfied the inclusion criteria. In total, 492 participants were included in these studies. Four selected studies displayed detailed information with regard to the number of implant failures according to the retention system. As reported, 29 (18.2%) of 159 implants with magnets failed, whereas 25 (31.6%) of 79 implants with bars failed. Overall auricular superstructures showed the highest survival (99.08%). In addition, 55.4% of all participants in the selected studies showed grade 0 of periimplant soft tissue reactions. Conclusions A systematic search for clinical studies resulted in few studies with a short-term follow-up and small number of participants. The limited data collected indicated that magnets show fewer complications than bar superstructures; however, no hard conclusions could be drawn. Further research, preferably in the form of clinical trials, is needed to validate these findings.-
Descrição: dc.descriptionCoordinator Dental Oncology Service Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP) Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo-
Descrição: dc.descriptionAssistant Dental Oncology Service Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP) Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School Sao Paulo State University-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery University Medical Center Groningen University of Groningen-
Descrição: dc.descriptionUniversity of São Paulo São Paulo Brazil; and Head Plastic Surgery Pontificia Universidade Catolica Medical School, Campinas-
Descrição: dc.descriptionClinical Oncology Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo (ICESP) Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo-
Descrição: dc.descriptionOral Diagnosis Department Piracicaba Dental School University of Campinas-
Descrição: dc.descriptionDepartment of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics Aracatuba Dental School Sao Paulo State University-
Formato: dc.format321-326.e2-
Idioma: dc.languageen-
Relação: dc.relationJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry-
???dc.source???: dc.sourceScopus-
Título: dc.titleA systematic comparison of bar-clips versus magnets-
Tipo de arquivo: dc.typevídeo-
Aparece nas coleções:Repositório Institucional - Unesp

Não existem arquivos associados a este item.