Suppr超能文献

缺失牙修复干预措施:维持牙种植体周围健康

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining health around dental implants.

作者信息

Esposito M, Worthington H V, Thomsen P, Coulthard P

机构信息

Department of Biomaterials and Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/Dental Material Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, PO Box 412, Medicinaregatan 8B, Goteborg, Sweden, SE-405 30.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(3):CD003069. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003069.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To maintain healthy tissues around dental implants it is important to institute an effective preventive regimen (supportive therapy). Different maintenance regimens have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference between different interventions for maintaining healthy tissues around dental implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 2 February 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or recovering healthy tissues around dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We carried out a quality assessment of the included RCTs in duplicate and contacted the authors for missing information. We independently extracted the data in duplicate. We followed the Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs were identified. Five of these trials, which reported results from a total of 127 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Two trials evaluated the efficacy of powered and sonic toothbrushes, respectively, when compared to manual toothbrushing and showed no statistically significant differences. One RCT compared Listerine versus placebo mouthwashes showing a reduction of 54% in plaque and 34% in marginal bleeding compared with the placebo. One trial compared self administered subgingival chlorhexidine irrigation versus chlorhexidine mouthwash. The group using chlorhexidine irrigation resulted in statistically significantly lower mean plaque scores and a marginal bleeding index than the group using chlorhexidine mouthwash, however the mouthwash was given at a suboptimal dosage. One study compared etching gel with mechanical debridement showing no statistical differences. Follow ups ranged between 6 weeks and 5 months. It was not possible to make any meta-analysis as each trial assessed different interventions.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is only little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining health around peri-implant tissues. There was no evidence that the use of powered or sonic toothbrushes was superior to manual toothbrushing. There is weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as adjunct to routine oral hygiene is effective in reducing plaque formation and marginal bleeding around implants. There was no evidence that phosphoric etching gel offered any clinical advantage over mechanical debridement. These findings are based on RCTs having short follow-up periods and few subjects. There is not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long term maintenance. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials powered to find possible differences, using primary outcome measures and with much longer follow up. Such trials should be reported according the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

摘要

背景

为维持牙种植体周围组织的健康,实施有效的预防方案(支持性治疗)很重要。已经提出了不同的维护方案,然而尚不清楚哪些是最有效的。

目的

检验不同干预措施在维持牙种植体周围健康组织方面无差异的零假设。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE和EMBASE。手工检索包括几种牙科杂志。我们检查了已识别的随机对照试验(RCT)的参考文献以及相关综述文章,以查找手工检索杂志之外的研究。我们写信给所有已识别的RCT的作者、55多家口腔种植体制造商和一个互联网讨论组,以查找未发表或正在进行的RCT。未设语言限制。最后一次电子检索于2004年2月2日进行。

选择标准

所有比较用于维持或恢复牙种植体周围健康组织的药物或干预措施的口腔种植体随机对照试验。

数据收集与分析

我们对纳入的RCT进行了重复质量评估,并就缺失信息与作者联系。我们独立重复提取数据。我们遵循Cochrane口腔健康组的统计指南。

主要结果

共识别出14项RCT。其中5项试验报告了总共127例患者的结果,适合纳入本综述。两项试验分别评估了电动牙刷和声波牙刷与手动牙刷相比的疗效,未显示出统计学上的显著差异。一项RCT比较了洗必泰漱口水与安慰剂漱口水,结果显示与安慰剂相比,牙菌斑减少54%,边缘性出血减少34%。一项试验比较了自我进行的龈下洗必泰冲洗与洗必泰漱口水。使用洗必泰冲洗的组的平均菌斑评分和边缘性出血指数在统计学上显著低于使用洗必泰漱口水的组,然而漱口水的给药剂量未达最佳。一项研究比较了蚀刻凝胶与机械清创,未显示出统计学差异。随访时间为6周至5个月。由于每项试验评估的干预措施不同,因此无法进行任何荟萃分析。

综述作者结论

关于哪些是维持种植体周围组织健康的最有效干预措施,仅有很少的可靠证据。没有证据表明使用电动牙刷或声波牙刷优于手动牙刷。有微弱证据表明,每天使用两次、每次30秒的洗必泰漱口水作为常规口腔卫生的辅助手段,可有效减少种植体周围的牙菌斑形成和边缘性出血。没有证据表明磷酸蚀刻凝胶比机械清创具有任何临床优势。这些发现基于随访期短且受试者少的RCT。对于长期维护的最有效方案,没有任何可靠证据。该领域应开展更多RCT。特别是,绝对需要进行有足够效力以发现可能差异的试验,使用主要结局指标并进行更长时间的随访。此类试验应按照CONSORT指南(http://www.consort-statement.org/)报告。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验