Sharif Mohammad O, Merry Alison, Catleugh Melanie, Tickle Martin, Brunton Paul, Dunne Stephen M, Aggarwal Vishal R
School of Dentistry, The University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, UK, M15 6FH.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17(2):CD005970. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005970.pub2.
Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement.
To evaluate the effectiveness of replacement (with amalgam) versus repair (with amalgam) in the management of defective amalgam dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.
For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 23rd September 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4); MEDLINE (1950 to 23rd September 2009); EMBASE (1980 to 23rd September 2009); ISI Web of Science (SCIE, SSCI) (1981 to 22nd December 2009); ISI Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22nd December 2009); BIOSIS (1985 to 22nd December 2009); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. There were no language limitations.
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trial, involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations.
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.
The search strategy retrieved 145 potentially eligible studies, after de-duplication and examination of the titles and abstracts all but three studies were deemed irrelevant. After further analysis of the full texts of the three studies identified, none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and all were excluded from this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are no published randomised controlled clinical trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled clinical trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.
汞合金是后牙常用的充填材料，与任何修复体一样，汞合金有一定的使用寿命。传统上，替换是治疗有缺陷汞合金修复体的理想方法，然而，修复提供了一种更保守的替代方法，适用于修复体仅有部分缺陷的情况。修复修复体有可能花费更少的时间，有时无需使用局部麻醉即可进行，因此与替换相比，对患者来说可能痛苦更小。
评估用汞合金替换与用汞合金修复在处理恒牙磨牙和前磨牙有缺陷的汞合金牙齿修复体方面的有效性。
为了识别与本综述相关的研究，我们检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库（截至2009年9月23日）；CENTRAL（Cochrane图书馆2009年第4期）；MEDLINE（1950年至2009年9月23日）；EMBASE（1980年至2009年9月23日）；ISI科学网（SCIE、SSCI）（1981年至2009年12月22日）；ISI科学网会议论文集（1990年至2009年12月22日）；BIOSIS（1985年至2009年12月22日）；以及OpenSIGLE（1980年至2005年）。联系了已知参与该领域的研究人员、专家和组织，以追踪未发表或正在进行的研究。没有语言限制。
如果试验符合以下标准则被选中：随机或半随机对照试验，涉及汞合金修复体的替换和修复。
两位综述作者独立评估通过检索确定的每篇文章的标题和摘要，以确定该文章是否可能相关。获取相关文章的全文，两位综述作者都对这些文章进行了研究。数据合成将遵循Cochrane协作组的统计指南。
检索策略检索到145项可能符合条件的研究，在去重并检查标题和摘要后，除三项研究外，所有研究均被认为不相关。在对确定的三项研究的全文进行进一步分析后，检索到的研究均未符合纳入标准，均被排除在本综述之外。
没有已发表的与本综述问题相关的随机对照临床试验。因此，需要按照《试验报告统一标准》（CONSORT）声明（www.consort-statement.org/）报告的方法学上合理的随机对照临床试验。进一步的研究还需要定性地探讨患者对修复与替换的看法，并调查围绕疼痛、痛苦和焦虑、时间和成本的主题。
