The Experts below are selected from a list of 36 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Feilong Deng - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation
Scientific Reports, 2021Co-Authors: Zhengchuan Zhang, Yang Yang, Feilong DengAbstract:AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and Complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and Prosthesis Complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological Complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from Prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or Prosthesis Complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).
Zhengchuan Zhang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation
Scientific Reports, 2021Co-Authors: Zhengchuan Zhang, Yang Yang, Feilong DengAbstract:AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and Complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and Prosthesis Complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological Complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from Prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or Prosthesis Complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).
Richard A. Santucci - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Rise of the Neophallus: A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthetic Outcomes and Complications in Gender-Affirming Surgery.
The journal of sexual medicine, 2019Co-Authors: Steven A. Rooker, Krishna S. Vyas, Emma C. Difilippo, Ian T Nolan, Shane D. Morrison, Richard A. SantucciAbstract:Abstract Background Penile prostheses are commonly used to achieve erectile rigidity after phalloplasty in trans masculine patients. Implantation poses significant challenges because of the delicate nature of the neophallus and lack of native erectile tissue. Many groups have developed novel phalloplasty and Prosthesis insertion techniques, but none have proven superior. Aim To analyze and aggregate reported characteristics and outcomes of penile Prosthesis implantation in the trans masculine patient. Methods A comprehensive literature search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Registry databases was conducted for studies published through February 19, 2019, with multiple search terms related to penile Prosthesis use in gender-affirming surgical procedures. Outcomes Studies were included and tabulated if they reported Prosthesis outcomes in patients who received a neophallus as part of a gender-affirming procedure. Results 23 journal articles met inclusion criteria from 434 references identified. All selected articles were either retrospective or case series/reports. A total of 1,056 patients underwent phalloplasty, and 792 received a penile Prosthesis. Most (83.6%) of the prostheses were inflatable, whereas 16.4% were non-inflatable. The number of cylinders used for each Prosthesis was 61.0% single-cylinder and 39.0% double-cylinder. The mean follow-up duration was 3.0 years. Of patients who received a Prosthesis, 36.2% reported a Prosthesis Complication; at follow-up 60.0% of patients had their original implant present, and 83.9% reported achieving penetration. Clinical Implications Prosthesis implantation in gender-affirming operations poses significant risk of Complication, but it is still a reasonable and useful method to achieve rigidity necessary for sexual intercourse. Strength & Limitation This is the first study to aggregate all reported penile Prosthesis characteristics and outcomes in trans masculine patients. This study was significantly limited by inconsistent reporting of demographics, sensation, urinary health, patient satisfaction, and penetrative sex. The lack of comparative studies precluded any meaningful meta-analytical comparison. Conclusions There is a great need for a Prosthesis designed to meet the specific needs of the trans masculine patient after phalloplasty. Standardized methods of reporting implant outcomes including sexual function, sensation, and patient satisfaction should be refined for future studies. This study can assist patients and surgeons about the risks and benefits of this procedure. Rooker SA, Vyas KS, DiFilippo EC, et al. The Rise of the Neophallus: A Systematic Review of Penile Prosthetic Outcomes and Complications in Gender-Affirming Surgery. J Sex Med 2019;16:661–672.
Yang Yang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation
Scientific Reports, 2021Co-Authors: Zhengchuan Zhang, Yang Yang, Feilong DengAbstract:AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and Complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and Prosthesis Complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological Complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from Prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or Prosthesis Complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).
Bockyoung Jung - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
prevalence of proximal contact loss between implant supported fixed prostheses and adjacent natural teeth and its associated factors a 7 year prospective study
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2017Co-Authors: Nansim Pang, Changsup Suh, Keedeog Kim, Wonse Park, Bockyoung JungAbstract:Objectives The aim was to analyze the prevalence rate of proximal contact loss (PCL) between implant-fixed prostheses (IFPs) and adjacent teeth and investigate the associated factors. Material and methods One hundred fifty participants were recruited for this prospective study from January 2009 to December 2014. Two hundred thirty-four IFPs supported by 384 implants for the posterior region were followed up until June 2016. The contact tightness had been recorded using aluminum strips of different thicknesses with a regular interval after delivery. Proximal contact was considered as lost if the contact tightness was over 50 μm, and statistical analyses were performed to estimate the prevalence rate of PCL and its influential factors. Results Among the total 299 proximal contacts of 234 IFPs, 179 were observed as a PCL (59.9%). Bone level and root configuration of the adjacent teeth, the proximal contact position and jaw position of the implant prostheses were statistically significant factors, when analyzed by the cumulative PCL rate using the log-rank test of the Kaplan–Meier method (P < 0.05) According to the Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, the proximal contact position, bone level of adjacent teeth and jaw position were revealed to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion PCL should be considered an implant Prosthesis Complication to which various associated factors could be related. This study revealed that the lower alveolar bone support level of the adjacent teeth, maxillary position of IFPs and mesial site of IFPs were significantly associated with a higher incidence of PCL.
