Survival of tooth-implant connections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Implant-supported prostheses have considerable biomechanical advantages in partially edentulous patients when compared to other prosthetic options. Given the steady drop in the frequency of patients reporting with complete edentulism, it is not unusual to see situations where teeth and implants can be splinted to provide support for fixed prostheses. A tooth implant prosthesis differs majorly from an implant-supported prosthesis in terms of force dissipation and design. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the survival rates of tooth-implant-supported prostheses with fully implant-supported and fully tooth-supported prostheses. Using the appropriate search terms, PubMed, Google Scholar, and other indexed journals were used to search the English-language literature. According to the review protocols and the PICOS inclusion criteria, the pertinent studies were chosen. The screening of appropriate studies, evaluation of study quality, and data extraction were carried out independently by two reviewers. The pooling of survival data by prostheses failure, implant failure, and marginal bone loss was used in the meta-analysis. The cumulative data of all included studies indicated that tooth-implant-supported prostheses showed a 5-year survival rate of 77%-84% and a 10-year survival rate of 72%. The pooled risk ratio for prostheses failure and implant failure was 0.99 and 1.76, respectively. These results were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The pooled standard mean difference for marginal bone loss was 0.59, and the results were statistically significant (P < 0.05). A tooth-implant-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) has a similar survival rate when compared to implant-supported FPD or T-FPD.

Comparative Study of Smart Scope® Visual Screening Test with Naked Eye Visual Screening and Pap Test.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a major contributor to mortality and morbidity in women. Naked eye visual screening (NE test) and Pap test are commonly used for cervical cancer screening.  Both tests have inherent limitations like low sensitivity (Pap test) and subjectivity in interpretation, lack of permanent record and overestimation (NE test). Here, Smart Scope® visual screening test (SS test) was compared with NE and Pap tests. Smart Scope® is a small, hand-held device that captures cervical images attached to a tablet to store data. OBJECTIVE: To compare SS test with Pap and NE tests. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective observational study was conducted at a tertiary care hospital in India, over 16 months. A total of 509 women in the age group of 25 to 65 years were included in the study as per the inclusion criteria. All the participants underwent Pap test, NE test and SS test. Screen positives on any one test were advised colposcopy and biopsy. RESULTS: Out of 154 screen-positive women, 49 visited for follow-up colposcopy-guided biopsy. Nine incidental biopsies of screen-negative women were included in the data.  Thus, statistical analysis was carried out based on 58 available histopathology results. Out of 58 biopsies, 8 were normal, 30 were benign lesions, 18 were precancerous and 2 were cancerous lesions. SS test was found to have a sensitivity and NPV of 100% each, PPV of 45.4% and a specificity of 36.8%. Sensitivity and specificity of NE test was 90% and 39.5% respectively, PPV was 43.9% and NPV was 88.2%. Pap smear had a sensitivity of 25% and specificity of 84.2%, PPV of 45.5% and NPV of 68.08%. CONCLUSION: SS test has great potential to be a primary screening test in low-resource settings due to its better sensitivity and NPV as compared to NE and Pap tests.
.