bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Tectonic controls on Miocene sedimentation in the Southern Taranaki Basin and implications for New Zealand plate boundary deformation
Authors: Bull Suzanne , Nicol Andrew , Strogen Dominic , Kroeger Karsten F. , Seebeck Hannu S. 
Published: October 2018

AbstractMiocene strata in the southern Taranaki Basin (STB), up to 3 km thick, provide a distal record of erosion associated with plate boundary deformation in New Zealand. 2D and 3D seismic reflection data tied to drillhole stratigraphy have been used to constrain four main phases of basin development. These are: (a) Early Miocene (22–19 Ma) subsidence, dominantly bathyal water depths and deposition of minor submarine fans along the eastern basin margin. (b) Middle Miocene (19–14 Ma) widespread submarine fan deposition on a bathyal basin floor in the central STB. (c) Rapid Middle–Late Miocene (14–7 Ma) progradation of the shelf break northwards across the STB. (d) Widespread uplift and erosion of the STB during the latest Miocene–Pliocene (7–4.5 Ma). Bathyal water depths and fan deposition in the Early Miocene were influenced by vertical motions on major reverse faults and regional subsidence produced by subduction of the Pacific plate beneath northern New Zealand. Subsequent submarine fan deposition and northward shelf‐break progradation reflect increasing input of terrigenous material, primarily eroded from an uplifting region to the south of the STB. Sedimentation patterns in the STB are consistent with the age and locations of conglomerates deposited in onshore West Coast basins, related to this uplift and erosion. Sediment transport in the West Coast region was mainly parallel to NNE trending active reverse faults, and in the STB was perpendicular to the NE‐SW orientated shelf break, especially from ca. 14–7 Ma, when sedimentation rates exceeded fault‐displacement rates. Increases in sedimentation rates in the STB coincide with regional increases in the rates of shortening that appear to reflect plate boundary‐wide events and have been attributed to, or correlated with, increases in the plate convergence rate. Miocene sedimentation patterns in the STB thus reflect both intra‐basinal deformation and tectonic signals from the wider developing New Zealand plate boundary.
The impact of bowel and bladder problems on children's quality of life and their parents: A scoping review
Authors: Collis Dianne , Kennedy‐Behr Ann , Kearney Lauren 
Published: October 2018

AbstractBackgroundFunctional bladder and bowel problems are common in children and have a serious psychological as well as physical impact. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesise evidence on the impact of such conditions both on children's quality of life (QOL) and their parents.MethodsThe scoping review followed Arksey and O′Malley's framework. Relevant studies were identified by a comprehensive search of scientific databases. Inclusion criteria focused on children with bladder and bowel dysfunction, their QOL, and impact on parents. Studies were analysed for aims, study populations, measures, and results.ResultsA total of 783 records were retrieved with 30 meeting the criteria. Most studies found that QOL was reduced in children with nocturnal enuresis, day bladder dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, and combined bladder and bowel dysfunction. Parents' QOL and social–emotional functioning were also negatively affected.ConclusionsFunctional bladder and bowel problems should be identified and treated as early as possible to minimise negative impacts on QOL of children and their carers. Future research should focus on how to best provide early and effective intervention in the most accessible manner.
Long‐term biological complications of dental implants placed either in pristine or in augmented sites: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Authors: Salvi Giovanni E. , Monje Alberto , Tomasi Cristiano 
Published: October 2018

AbstractAimTo investigate and compare the prevalence of biological complications and failure of implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites after a mean observation period of at least 10 years.Materials and methodsThe focused question “In patients with osseointegrated dental implants, are there differences in biological complications and implant failure at implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites?” was addressed using the Population, Exposure, Comparison and Outcome criteria. Electronic and manual searches supplemented by the screening of the grey literature were carried out. A case definition of peri‐implant mucositis and peri‐implantitis had to be specified. The binary random‐effects method was chosen to conduct meta‐analyses. Results are presented as Forest plots with weighted mean values and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The I2 statistic test was applied to quantify heterogeneity. The Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale and the parameters provided in the Cochrane Center and CONSORT statement were used for quality assessment. The results are reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsNo randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing the outcomes of implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites was identified. Five case‐series studies, one case–control study, one cross‐sectional study and one RCT were eligible for qualitative and quantitative analyses. No statistically significant differences (p > .05) were observed between implants placed in pristine vs. augmented sites for any outcome variables both at patient and at implant levels, respectively. High heterogeneity concerning patient sampling, case definitions of biological complications and eligibility criteria was observed.ConclusionThe studies included in the present systematic review did not directly address the focused questions. Hence, the outcomes of the meta‐analysis should be interpreted with caution due to high variability with respect to study design.
Systematic review of clinical and patient‐reported outcomes following oral rehabilitation on dental implants with a tapered compared to a non‐tapered implant design
Authors: Jokstad Asbjørn , Ganeles Jeffrey 
Published: October 2018

AbstractBackgroundDental implants are available in different shapes.AimsThis systematic review aims to address whether tapered compared to non‐tapered implants demonstrate similar clinical and patient‐reported outcomes. The review follows the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) format.Materials & MethodsWe searched electronic databases including MEDLINE through PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized clinical trials (RCT) that compare tapered versus non‐tapered implants with at least 10 treated participants and a minimum mean follow‐up time of 3 years. There were no restrictions to a particular treatment indication or outcome measures. Two authors independently conducted screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction of eligible trials in duplicate. We applied the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool to consider risk of bias.ResultsWe identified 18 different RCTs, of which three reported outcomes at 3 years or greater. The three trials described the results of 245 participants with 388 implants at 3 years, from the initially 306 participants with 494 implants at baseline. The three trials compared, respectively, two, two, and three different commercially available implant brands and reported only clinically insignificant differences. We judged all three trials to be at moderate risk of bias. The low number and heterogeneity of RCTs did not allow for meta‐analyses.Discussion and conclusionAppropriate professional judgment in clinical decision making must include a comprehensive diagnosis of the patient's jawbone quality and quantity and consideration of osteotomy protocol in accordance with the patient's treatment preferences, where the shape of the dental implant is only one contributory factor.
Accuracy of linear measurements on CBCT images related to presurgical implant treatment planning: A systematic review
Authors: Fokas George , Vaughn Vida M. , Scarfe William C. , Bornstein Michael M. 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to identify, review, analyze, and summarize available evidence on the accuracy of linear measurements when using maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) specifically in the field of implant dentistry.Material and methodsThe search was undertaken in April 2017 in the National Library of Medicine database (Medline) through its online site (PubMed), followed by searches in the Cochrane, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis databases. The main inclusion criterion for studies was that linear CBCT measurements were performed for quantitative assessment (e.g., height, width) of the alveolar bone at edentulous sites or measuring distances from anatomical structures related to implant dentistry. The studies should compare these values to clinical data (humans) or ex vivo and/or experimental (animal) findings from a “gold standard.”ResultsThe initial search yielded 2,516 titles. In total, 22 studies were included in the final analysis. Of those, two were clinical and 20 ex vivo investigations. The major findings of the review indicate that CBCT provides cross‐sectional images that demonstrate high accuracy and reliability for bony linear measurements on cross‐sectional images related to implant treatment. A wide range of error has been reported when performing linear measurements on CBCT images, with both over‐ and underestimation of dimensions in comparison with a gold standard. A voxel size of 0.3 to 0.4 mm is adequate to provide CBCT images of acceptable diagnostic quality for implant treatment planning.ConclusionsCBCT can be considered as an appropriate diagnostic tool for 3D preoperative planning. Nevertheless, a 2 mm safety margin to adjacent anatomic structures should be considered when using CBCT. In clinical practice, the measurement accuracy and reliability of linear measurements on CBCT images are most likely reduced through factors such as patient motion, metallic artefacts, device‐specific exposure parameters, the software used, and manual vs. automated procedures.
Narrow‐diameter implants: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Authors: Schiegnitz Eik , Al‐Nawas Bilal 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectivesNarrow‐diameter implants (NDI) are claimed to be a reasonable alternative to bone augmentation procedures. The aim of this comprehensive literature review was to conduct a meta‐analysis comparing the implant survival of NDI and standard diameter implants (SDI) and to provide recommendations and guidelines for application of NDI.Material and methodsAn extensive systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library databases. NDI were classified into Category 1 (implant diameter <3.0 mm, “mini‐implants”), Category 2 (implant diameter 3–3.25 mm) and Category 3 (implant diameters 3.3–3.5 mm). Clinical studies at all levels of evidence with at least 10 patients included and a follow‐up time of at least 12 months were included. The primary outcome criterion was the survival rates of NDI.ResultsSeventy‐six studies were identified for qualitative and 16 studies for quantitative synthesis. Quality assessment illustrated a high risk of bias for the included literature. Mean implant survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for Categories 1, 2 and 3. Meta‐analysis indicated a statistically significant lower implant survival of Category 1 NDI compared to SDI ([OR], 4.54; [CI], 1.51–13.65). For Category 2 and Category 3, no statistical significant differences in implant survival were seen compared to SDI ([OR], 1.06; [CI], 0.31–3.61 and [OR], 1.19; [CI], 0.83–1.70).ConclusionNDI of Category 1 performed statistically significantly worse than SDI and were mainly described for the rehabilitation of the highly atrophic maxilla or mandible. Category 2 and Category 3 NDI showed no difference in implant survival compared to SDI. Category 2 NDI were mostly used for the rehabilitation of limited interdental spaces in anterior single‐tooth restorations. NDI of Category 3 were described in all regions, including posterior single‐tooth restorations. However, resilient long‐term data and data on the possible risk of biological and technical complications with wide platform teeth on NDI are missing so far.
Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: A systematic review
Authors: Gallucci German O. , Hamilton Adam , Zhou Wenjie , Buser Daniel , Chen Stephen 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence for the clinical outcome of fixed implant prostheses treated with different combinations of implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients.Materials and methodsAn electronic search was performed in Medline, Embase, and Central to identify studies investigating the outcome of implants subjected to immediate placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 1A), immediate placement + early loading (Type 1B), immediate placement + conventional loading (Type 1C), early placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 2‐3A), early placement + early loading (Type 2‐3B), early placement + conventional loading (Type 2‐3C), late placement + immediate restoration/loading (Type 4A), late placement + early loading (Type 4B), late placement + conventional loading (Type 4C) with implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs) in partially edentulous patients. Only human studies with at least 10 cases and a minimum follow‐up time of 12 months, reporting on solid‐screw‐type implants with rough surfaces and an intra‐osseous diameter between 3 and 6 mm, were included. A cumulative survival rate for each type of the implant placement and loading protocols was weighted by the duration of follow‐up and number of implants.ResultsThe search provided 5,248 titles from which 2,362 abstracts and 449 full‐text articles were screened. A total of 69 publications that comprised 23 comparative studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 7 controlled clinical trials) and 47 noncomparative studies (34 prospective cohort studies, 13 retrospective cohort studies) were included for analysis. Considerable heterogeneity in study design was found, and therefore, a meta‐analysis of controlled studies was not possible. The weighted cumulative survival rate of each type of placement and loading protocol was 98.4% (Type 1A), 98.2% (Type 1B), 96.0% (Type 1C), 100% (Type 2‐3B), 96.3% (Type 2‐3C), 97.9% (Type 4A), 98.3% (Type 4B), and 97.7% (Type 4C). Type 1C, Type 2‐3C, Type 4B, and Type 4C were scientifically and clinically validated (SCV). Type 1A, Type 1B, and Type 4A were clinically documented (CD), and Type 2‐3A and Type 2‐3B were clinically insufficiently documented (CID).ConclusionsEvaluating outcomes in oral implantology by combining the placement and loading protocols are paramount. The selected loading protocol appears to influence the outcome of immediate implant placement.
Patient‐reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with implant‐supported removable and fixed prostheses: A systematic review
Authors: Yao Coral J , Cao Cong , Bornstein Michael M. , Mattheos Nikos 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to compare patient‐reported outcomes measures (PROMs) of implant‐supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs) and overdentures (IODs).Material and methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched, complemented by manual search. Studies published in English up to November 2016 comparing removable with fixed implant‐supported prosthesis on fully edentulous patients were included. The review focused on impact on patients’ oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL), satisfaction or other patient‐reported outcomes measures.ResultsOf 1,563 initially screened articles, 13 studies including 8 prospective and 5 retrospective studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. OHRQoL and patient satisfaction were the most common PROMs. When evaluating the levels of evidence, five of thirteen studies were graded as level III and seven reached level II. The only randomized control trial was rated as Ib. The methods used to evaluate PROMs were heterogeneous among studies, and there was a lack of standardization in the measurements employed. In general, IFCD and IOD showed no significant differences when compared for PROMs, with a slight trend of IFCD being superior to IOD in most included studies. However, conflicting results were observed in many aspects such as chewing function, phonetics‐related function, overall satisfaction and aesthetics.ConclusionsInconsistent results were observed in PROMs when comparing IFCD and IOD for fully edentulous patients. A guideline for standardizing the assessment of PROMs in clinical research is needed in order to produce more meaningful evidence‐based information.
Clinical outcomes of peri‐implantitis treatment and supportive care: A systematic review
Authors: Roccuzzo Mario , Layton Danielle M. , Roccuzzo Andrea , Heitz‐Mayfield Lisa J. 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectivesTo report the clinical outcomes for patients with implants treated for peri‐implantitis who subsequently received supportive care (supportive peri‐implant/periodontal therapy) for at least 3 years.Material and methodsA systematic search of multiple electronic databases, grey literature and hand searching, without language restriction, to identify studies including ≥10 patients was constructed. Data and risk of bias were explored qualitatively. Estimated cumulative survival at the implant‐ and patient‐level was pooled with random‐effects meta‐analysis and explored for publication bias (funnel plot) at different time intervals.ResultsThe search identified 5,761 studies. Of 83 records selected during screening, 65 were excluded through independent review (kappa = 0.94), with 18 retained for qualitative and 13 of those for quantitative assessments. On average, studies included 26 patients (median, IQR 21–32), with 36 implants (median, IQR 26–45). Study designs (case definitions of peri‐implantitis, peri‐implantitis treatment, supportive care) and population characteristics (patient, implant and prosthesis characteristics) varied markedly. Data extraction was affected by reduced reporting quality, but over 75% of studies had low risk of bias. Implant survival was 81.73%–100% at 3 years (seven studies), 74.09%–100% at 4 years (three studies), 76.03%–100% at 5 years (four studies) and 69.63%–98.72% at 7 years (two studies). Success and recurrence definitions were reported in five and two studies respectively, were heterogeneous, and those outcomes were unable to be explored quantitatively.ConclusionTherapy of peri‐implantitis followed by regular supportive care resulted in high patient‐ and implant‐level survival in the medium to long term. Favourable results were reported, with clinical improvements and stable peri‐implant bone levels in the majority of patients.
Effect of advanced age and/or systemic medical conditions on dental implant survival: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Authors: Schimmel Martin , Srinivasan Murali , McKenna Gerald , Müller Frauke 
Published: October 2018

AbstractObjectiveshis review evaluated implant survival in geriatric patients (≥75 years) and/or the impact of systemic medical conditions.Materials and MethodsSystematic literature searches were performed to identify studies reporting on geriatric subjects with dental implants and on implant patients who had any of the seven most common systematic conditions among geriatric patients. Meta‐analyses were performed on the postloading implant survival rates. The impact of systemic medical conditions and their respective treatment was qualitatively analyzed.ResultsA total of 6,893 studies were identified; of those, 60 studies were included. The fixed‐effects model revealed an overall implant survival of 97.3% (95%CI: 94.3, 98.7; studies = 7) and 96.1% (95%CI: 87.3, 98.9; studies = 3), for 1 and 5 years, respectively. In patients with cardiovascular disease, implant survival may be similar or higher compared to healthy patients. High implant survival rates were reported for patients with Parkinson's disease or diabetes mellitus typeII. In patients with cancer, implant survival is negatively affected, namely by radiotherapy. Patients with bone metastases receiving high‐dose antiresorptive therapy (ART) carry a high risk for complications after implant surgery. Implant survival was reported to be high in patients receiving low‐doseARTfor treatment of osteoporosis. No evidence was found on implant survival in patients with dementia, respiratory diseases, liver cirrhosis, or osteoarthritis.ConclusionsImplant prostheses in geriatric subjects are a predictable treatment option with a very high rate of implant survival. The functional and psychosocial benefits of such intervention should outweigh the associated risks to common medical conditions.
Survival rates of short dental implants (≤6 mm) compared with implants longer than 6 mm in posterior jaw areas: A meta‐analysis
Authors: Papaspyridakos Panos , De Souza Andre , Vazouras Konstantinos , Gholami Hadi , Pagni Sarah , Weber Hans‐Peter 
Published: October 2018

AbstractPurposeTo systematically review randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) reporting on the long‐term survival and failure rates, as well as the complications of short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants (>6 mm) in posterior jaw areas.Materials and MethodsElectronic and manual searches were conducted to identify studies, specifically RCTs, reporting on short dental implants (≤6 mm) and their survival and complication rates compared with implants longer than 6 mm. Secondary outcomes analyzed were marginal bone loss and prosthesis survival rates.ResultsTen RCTs fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured a total of 637 short (≤6 mm) implants placed in 392 patients, while 653 standard implants (>6 mm) were inserted in 383 patients. The short implant survival rate ranged from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow‐up from 1 to 5 years. The risk ratio (RR) for short implant failure compared to standard implants was 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67, 2.50, p = 0.45), demonstrating that overall, short implants presented higher risk of failure compared to longer implants. The heterogeneity test did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.67), suggesting low between‐study heterogeneity. The prosthesis survival rates from the short implant groups ranged from 90% to 100% and from 95% to 100% for longer implant groups, respectively.ConclusionShort implants (≤6 mm) were found to have higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates compared to longer implants (>6 mm) after periods of 1–5 years in function. The mean survival rate was 96% (range: 86.7%–100%) for short implants, and 98% (range 95%–100%) for longer implants. Based on the quantity and quality of the evidence provided by 10 RCTs, short implants with ≤6 mm length should be carefully selected because they may present a greater risk for failure compared to implants longer than 6 mm.