Purpose
The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of using short implants (≤ 8 mm) inserted with osteotome sinus floor elevation (OSFE) and standard implants (≥ 10 mm) inserted with sinus floor elevation (SFE) in atrophic posterior maxillae with insufficient residual bone height (RBH).
Methods
An electronic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from 1994 to July 2022, in combination with a manual search of references in relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical results between short and standard implant placement with SFE were included. The primary outcomes were implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL); the secondary outcome was complication rate.
Results
Three RCTs were included, totaling 138 short and 156 standard implants. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant differences between the short and standard implant groups in survival rate (RR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.96–1.08, p = 0.570), MBL (MD = − 0.13, 95% CI − 0.32 to 0.07, p = 0.190) and complication rate (intra-surgical complication: RR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.46–2.83, p = 0.770; post-operative complication: RR = 1.34, 95% CI 0.71–2.55, p = 0.370).
Conclusions
Using short implants (≤ 8 mm) combined with OSFE might be an alternative to standard implants (≥ 10 mm) with SFE when the RBH of the posterior maxilla is insufficient. Based on a short-term clinical observation, short implants with OSFE show good results in terms of survival rate, MBL, and complication incidence.
Graphical Abstract
BackgroundNeoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy (NCIO) is more effective than neoadjuvant immunotherapy alone for pathological response in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients, but the processes for determining patient suitability for its implementation are not clear. We aimed to identify the most relevant factors and build a convenient model to select NSCLC patients who would benefit most from NCIO.Methods We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients with locally advanced NSCLC who received NCIO followed by surgery at our institution between January 2019 and July 2022.ResultsA total of 101 eligible stage IIB-IIIC NSCLC patients were included. After NCIO, all patients successfully underwent surgical resection. A total of 46.53% (47/101) of patients achieved pathological complete response (pCR), and 70.30% (71/101) achieved major pathologic response (MPR). Tumor regression rate (adjusted odds ratio OR = 12.33), PD-L1 expression (adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 9.66), pembrolizumab/nab-paclitaxel–based regimens (adjusted OR = 4.92), and comorbidities (adjusted OR = 0.16) were independently associated with pCR rate (all P < 0.05). Tumor regression rate (adjusted OR = 8.45), PD-L1 expression (adjusted OR = 5.35), and presence of squamous cell carcinoma (adjusted OR = 7.02) were independently associated with MPR rate (all P < 0.05). We established and validated an easy-to-use clinical model to predict pCR (with an area under the curve [AUC] of 0.848) and MPR (with an AUC of 0.847). Of note, the present study showed that CD4+ T-cell count/rate and total cholesterol (TC) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels in the peripheral blood of pre-NCIO patients were also significantly correlated with pathological response in univariate analyses.ConclusionsThe tumor regression rate, PD-L1 expression, pembrolizumab/nab-paclitaxel–based regimens, presence of squamous cell carcinoma, and comorbidities were the main influential factors for incidence of pCR/MPR in patients with stage IIB-IIIC NSCLC in the present study. Through predictive models, we can predict who will benefit most from NCIO prior to the emergence of clinical outcomes in locally advanced NSCLC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.