Kahler Bill, Heithersay Geoffrey S
Discipline of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
Dent Traumatol. 2008 Feb;24(1):2-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2006.00480.x.
The evidence-based methodology involves framing a well defined PICO (problem, intervention, comparison and outcome) question related to a clinical problem and then comprehensively searching for the evidence, which is evaluated to appraise the value of the treatment intervention. For this systematic review of splinting of teeth that have been luxated, avulsed or root-fractured, the clinical PICO question is (P) what are splinting intervention decisions for luxated, avulsed and root-fractured teeth (I) considering that the splinting intervention choice may include (i) no splinting, (ii) rigid or functional splinting for the different types of trauma and (iii) different durations of the splinting period (C) when comparing these splinting choices for the different types of trauma and their effect on (O) healing outcomes for the teeth. A keyword search of PubMed was used. Reference lists from identified articles and dental traumatology texts were also appraised. The inclusion criterion for this review was either a multivariate analysis or controlled stratified analyses as many variables have the potential to confound the assessment and evaluation of healing outcomes for teeth that have been luxated, avulsed or root-fractured. A positive statistical test is not proof of a causal conclusion, as a positive statistical relationship can arise by chance, and so this review also appraises animal studies that reportedly explain biological mechanisms that relate to healing outcomes of splinted teeth. The clinical studies were ranked using the 'Centre of Evidence-based Medicine' categorization (levels 1-5). All 12 clinical studies selected were ranked as level 4. The studies generally indicate that the prognosis is determined by the type of injury rather than factors associated with splinting. The results indicate that the types of splint and the fixation period are generally not significant variables when related to healing outcomes. This appraisal identified difficulties in the design of animal experimentation to correctly simulate some dental injuries. Some of the studies employed rigid splinting techniques, which are not representative of current recommendations. Recommended splinting treatment protocols for teeth that have been luxated, avulsed or root-fractured teeth are formulated on the strength of research evidence. Despite the ranking of these studies in this appraisal as low levels of evidence, these recommendations should be considered 'best practice', a core philosophy of evidence-based dentistry.
循证方法包括针对临床问题构建一个定义明确的PICO(问题、干预措施、对照和结果)问题,然后全面搜索证据,并对其进行评估以评价治疗干预措施的价值。对于本次关于脱位、脱落或根折牙齿固定的系统评价,临床PICO问题为:(P)对于脱位、脱落和根折牙齿,其固定干预决策是什么(I)考虑到固定干预选择可能包括:(i)不固定,(ii)针对不同类型创伤的刚性或功能性固定,以及(iii)不同的固定期时长(C)当比较针对不同类型创伤的这些固定选择及其对(O)牙齿愈合结果的影响时。使用PubMed进行关键词搜索。还对已识别文章的参考文献列表和牙外伤学文本进行了评估。本次评价的纳入标准为多变量分析或对照分层分析,因为许多变量有可能混淆对脱位、脱落或根折牙齿愈合结果的评估。阳性统计检验并非因果结论的证据,因为阳性统计关系可能偶然出现,因此本评价还评估了据报道解释了与固定牙齿愈合结果相关生物学机制的动物研究。临床研究采用“循证医学中心”分类法(1 - 5级)进行排名。所选的12项临床研究均被评为4级。这些研究总体表明,预后取决于损伤类型而非与固定相关的因素。结果表明,当涉及愈合结果时,固定类型和固定期一般不是显著变量。该评价发现动物实验设计中难以正确模拟某些牙外伤。一些研究采用了刚性固定技术,这并不代表当前的建议。基于研究证据制定了针对脱位、脱落或根折牙齿的推荐固定治疗方案。尽管在本次评价中这些研究的排名为低证据级别,但这些建议应被视为“最佳实践”,这是循证牙科的核心理念。