Int J Prosthodont. 2011 Sep-Oct;24(5):417-27.
This paper aimed to practice evidence-based dentistry by critically appraising relevant evidence to address a common question in prosthodontics. It sought to answer whether the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were comparable or superior to those of metal-ceramic FDPs, and to use this knowledge to guide clinical decisions.
A 6S search was conducted. No decision support systems or summaries were available. The journal Evidence-Based Dentistry (zero synopses), Trip database (three synopses, discarded), Cochrane database (three systematic reviews, discarded), MEDLINE OVID (six systematic reviews, one accepted), and Embase (zero systematic reviews) were searched. The selected systematic review assessed the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic FDPs. One additional prospective cohort study was considered relevant.
The systematic review addressed a well-focused clinical question, but its internal validity was compromised. The search was not systematic; inclusion methodology and impact of study characteristics on results were unclear. The external applicability was limited by compromised internal validity, broad outcome definitions, inaccurate results, and incomplete examination of stated aims. With care, however, the results could be applied to clinical practice. Estimated event rates and 5-year outcomes with a 95% confidence interval were calculated, with the survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs significantly higher than that of all-ceramic FDPs. All-ceramic FDPs experienced a high incidence of technical failure. The prospective cohort addressed a well-focused clinical question with good internal validity. It compared outcomes of metal-ceramic FDPs provided before and after the introduction of implant therapy. Patient cohorts were clearly defined, similar at baseline, and treated equally. Ten-year Kaplan-Meier cumulative survival with standard errors was reported. Metal-ceramic FDP survival rates were high and significantly improved since the introduction of implants and the decreased use of structurally compromised abutments.
The results of the systematic review and prospective cohort were complementary: Metal-ceramic FDPs had high survival, with a significantly greater 5-year survival rate than all-ceramic FDPs. Differences in complications were unknown, but evidence indicated that the complication incidence of metal-ceramic FDPs was lower than that of all-ceramic FDPs. This evidence was directly applicable to the clinical scenario and will help guide clinical decision making.
本研究旨在通过对相关证据进行批判性评估,为修复学中的一个常见问题提供循证医学实践。该研究旨在回答全瓷固定义齿(FDP)的存活率和并发症发生率是否与金属-陶瓷 FDP 相当或更高,并利用这一知识指导临床决策。
进行了 6S 检索。没有决策支持系统或摘要可用。检索了《循证牙科学杂志》(零篇摘要)、Trip 数据库(三篇摘要,已排除)、Cochrane 数据库(三篇系统评价,已排除)、MEDLINE OVID(六篇系统评价,一篇已接受)和 Embase(无系统评价)。选择的系统评价评估了全瓷和金属-陶瓷 FDP 的存活率和并发症发生率。另外还考虑了一项前瞻性队列研究。
该系统评价针对一个重点明确的临床问题,但内部有效性受到影响。检索未进行系统检索;纳入方法和研究特征对结果的影响不明确。由于内部有效性受损、广泛的结局定义、不准确的结果和对既定目标的不完全检查,其外部适用性受到限制。然而,在谨慎应用的情况下,这些结果可以应用于临床实践。计算了估计的事件发生率和 5 年的结果,并计算了 95%置信区间,金属-陶瓷 FDP 的存活率明显高于全瓷 FDP。全瓷 FDP 技术失败发生率较高。前瞻性队列研究针对一个重点明确的临床问题,具有良好的内部有效性。它比较了在引入种植治疗前后金属-陶瓷 FDP 的结果。患者队列定义明确,基线相似,且治疗平等。报道了 10 年 Kaplan-Meier 累积生存率和标准误差。金属-陶瓷 FDP 存活率高,自引入种植体和减少使用结构受损基牙以来,存活率显著提高。
系统评价和前瞻性队列研究的结果互为补充:金属-陶瓷 FDP 的存活率较高,5 年存活率明显高于全瓷 FDP。并发症的差异未知,但证据表明金属-陶瓷 FDP 的并发症发生率低于全瓷 FDP。这一证据直接适用于临床情况,并将有助于指导临床决策。