RESUMEN
Objectives: It is commonly accepted that immediate implantation is the best option for patients since it shortens the time patients must wait for ultimate restoration and provides a predictable functional and aesthetic result. However, this approach is still controversial in patients with apical pathosis. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of immediate implant insertion in patients with apical pathosis. Material and methods: Between 2000 and 2023, PRISMA-compliant keywords were used to search PubMed, MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Library. All English-language clinical studies that met PICOS criteria were included in a manual search. The included studies' demographic profile and event data for immediate dental implantation success in patients with or without apical pathosis were meta-analyzed using RevMan. The implant survival rate was assessed using risk ratio of plaque index and bleeding index. Begg's test using MedCalc and RevMan risk of bias assessment assessed publication bias. Results: A meta-analysis of 10 trials with 849 dental implantation patients found a substantial difference in initial implant placement success rates in infected sites. The pooled risk ratio for plaque index is 0.59 (95% CI: 0.36-0.96) with heterogeneity of Tau2 = 0.62, chi2 = 109.69, df = 11, I2 = 90%, z = 2.12, and p < 0.05. While, the pooled risk ratio for bleeding index is 0.77 (95% CI: 0.60 to 0.98) with Tau2 = 0.16, chi2 = 103.67, df = 11, I2 = 89%, z = 2.12, and p < 0.05. The pooled odds ratio of implant survival rate is 2.08 (95% CI: 1.56 to 1.79) with Tau2 0.16; chi2 52.43; df 9; I2 83%; z 4.93 and p < 0.05. As evidenced by the funnel plot and statistically insignificant Begg's test p values of 0.45. Conclusion: The placement of immediate implants in locations affected by apical pathosis is a clinically beneficial surgery, resulting in favorable aesthetic and functional outcomes for patients.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Teledentistry uses computer-based technology to render remote healthcare-related therapy and/or consultation. The purpose of this study was to review the contributions and concerns about the use of teledentistry in clinical orthodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The focused question was "What are the benefits and limitations of the use of teledentistry in clinical orthodontics?" PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, Google-Scholar and ISI Web of knowledge databases were searched up to and including February 2021 using the following key words: 1. teledentistry; 2. teleorthodontics; 3. ethics; 4. orthodontics; 5. SCOPE: The inclusion criteria were: (a) clinical studies; (b) case reports; and (c) case series. Studies on animal models, in vitro and/or ex vivo studies, letters, commentaries, and narrative and systematic reviews were not included in the search. The design of the study was tailored to recapitulate the relevant information. RESULTS: Four clinical studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were processed for data extraction. All studies had been performed after obtaining informed consent from the participants. Three studies reported that teledentistry was useful in clinical orthodontics. In one study, a clear conclusion could not be drawn regarding the benefits of teledentistry in clinical orthodontics. Two out of the four studies did not obtain prior approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee. Three studies did not report any measures that were undertaken to safeguard the electronic transfer of patient-related health information. CONCLUSIONS: Teledentistry is a useful tool for initial patient assessments; however, it is not a reliable alternative for in-office clinical orthodontic practice.