Evidence Based Dentistry, Peninsula Dental School.
Br Dent J. 2011 Jun 10;210(11):533-7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.461.
Since August 2009, members of the Primary Care Dentistry Research Forum (www.dentistryresearch.org) have taken part in an online vote to identify questions in day-to-day practice that they felt most needed to be answered with conclusive research. The question that receives the most votes each month forms the subject of a critical appraisal of the relevant literature. Each month a new round of voting takes place to decide which further questions will be reviewed. Dental practitioners and dental care professionals are encouraged to take part in the voting and submit their own questions to be included in the vote by joining the website. The paper below details a summary of the findings of the ninth critical appraisal. In order to address the question raised by dentistry research forum, first a search was conducted for systematic reviews on the topic. There was one systematic review retrieved comparing bonded amalgam restorations versus non-bonded amalgam restorations. However, there was no other systematic review identified assessing the effectiveness of dental liners under amalgam restorations in general. Therefore, a search was conducted for any randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing use of a lining under amalgam restorations versus no lining or RCTs comparing differing lining materials under amalgam against each other. There were eight relevant RCTs identified. Due to the low quality, small sample sizes or lack of adequate reporting of the outcome data, the evidence is inadequate to claim or refute a difference in postoperative sensitivity between different dental liners. Further well-conducted RCTs are needed to answer this question. These RCTs would be preferably included and synthesised in a systematic review.
自 2009 年 8 月以来,初级保健牙科研究论坛(www.dentistryresearch.org)的成员参与了在线投票,以确定他们认为最需要用确凿的研究来回答的日常实践中的问题。每月获得最多票数的问题将成为对相关文献进行批判性评估的主题。每月进行新一轮投票,以决定将审查哪些进一步的问题。鼓励牙科从业者和牙科保健专业人员参与投票,并通过加入该网站提交自己的问题以纳入投票。下面的论文详细介绍了第九次批判性评估的结果摘要。为了解决牙科研究论坛提出的问题,首先针对该主题进行了系统评价搜索。检索到一项比较粘结性汞合金修复与非粘结性汞合金修复的系统评价。然而,没有发现其他系统评价评估一般汞合金修复下牙科衬垫的有效性。因此,针对使用汞合金修复下衬垫与不使用衬垫或比较不同衬垫材料下汞合金的随机对照试验(RCT)进行了搜索。确定了八项相关 RCT。由于低质量、小样本量或缺乏对结果数据的充分报告,证据不足以声称或反驳不同牙科衬垫之间术后敏感性的差异。需要进一步进行良好设计的 RCT 来回答这个问题。这些 RCT 最好被纳入并在系统评价中进行综合分析。