الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 202 |  |  |
| | | from | 202 | | |
Abstract
Effect of Smoking on the Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
2. Structured Summary
2.1 Background
Implant-retained prostheses have been considered as a common treatment
modality associated with high success and survival rates, in addition to increased patient satisfaction. Smoking is one of the major patient-related factors and therefore, needs a considerable attention. Previous systematic reviews did not resolve this debate, or even reach a consensus to decide for placing dental implants
in smokers. However, due to their inherent limitations of the previous systematic reviews and availability of new studies, conducting the current systematic review was mandatory The objective of this systematic review is to determine the prognosis of implant treatment in smokers if compared to non-smokers. (population/participants): Patients requiring dental implants.
Smoking patients
(comparator): Non-smoking patients
(outcomes) : Implant failure
(time) : At least one year
(study design): Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis Review authors searched 3 electronic databases; Pubmed, Cochrane and Lilacs: 17/11/2018, hand searched 8 journals till December 2018, Grey Literature: 12/11/2018 and snowballing: 12/12/2018. Hand searching was done for
International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Clinical Oral Implant Research, Journal of Implant Dentistry, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial implants, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, European Journal of Oral Implantology, Journal of dental research, Journal of Quintessence international. Study Eligibility Criteria Participants Completely or partially edentulous male or female participants who are systematically healthy and who require implant supported prosthesis, whether
fixed or removable. Studies that compared implant treatment between smokers and non-smokers, using both delayed insertion and loading protocols.
2.5 Data Collection and Analysis
Review authors extracted data relevant to PECOTS. Besides, confounders and co-interventions were collected and reported. Data was descriptive and
statistically analyzed. Out of 9 included studies, 8 studies were included in the meta-analysis.Review authors assessed risk of bias separately and in duplicates based on the outcome level within and across the studies using Cochrane tool for randomized clinical trials and ROBINS-I tool for cohort studies. 2.7 Results
Nine studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria; 6 prospective
cohort studies and 3 RCTs, including 650 patients. One RCT did not mention the
exact number of participants and instead the number of inserted implants was
reported.