Draenert Miriam E, Jakob Michael, Kunzelmann Karl-Heinz, Hickel Reinhard
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Am J Dent. 2013 Feb;26(1):21-7.
To provide a current status of the art, answering the question whether a certain procedure of periodontal treatment is more reliable than another and where innovative developments could improve on the incidence of hypersensitivity by a systematic literature review.
Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library were considered for the study. 2,656 articles of the PubMed search were found, from the beginning of 1945 until April 2011. 99 articles from PubMed were evaluated for this review. From Embase, 60 articles were selected and one was included in this review. From the Cochrane library, 182 were found, of which two contributed to the review. Included were all studies dealing with periodontal treatment followed by hypersensitivity and all studies dealing with the loss of attachment, followed by hypersensitivity. Excluded were any treatments of tooth hypersensitivity with pathogenesis not related to dentin exposure, genetically caused disorders, and fractures. Ultimately, 102 papers were evaluated, included and referred to in the review.
The term "tooth hypersensitivity" is most often used. Common causes of loss of hard substance are listed and updated. Mechanical loss of hard tissue formed one group of etiological factors; gingival recession and loss of attachment another. Surgical interventions, scaling and root planing were considered and in most cases performed as combined procedures. The different methods were evaluated and critically discussed. There were no properly randomized studies in the literature. The weak point of all epidemiological studies is the lack of any objective measurement. With respect to periodontal therapy, further research and developmental work on medical devices is needed, as well as ongoing applied research with laser technologies, continuing education and training programs for professionals.
通过系统的文献综述，呈现当前的技术现状，回答某种牙周治疗程序是否比另一种更可靠，以及创新发展在何处可以改善牙齿敏感发生率的问题。
本研究检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆。从1945年初至2011年4月，在PubMed搜索中找到2656篇文章。本综述评估了来自PubMed的99篇文章。从Embase中，筛选出60篇文章，其中1篇纳入本综述。从Cochrane图书馆中，找到182篇文章，其中2篇对本综述有贡献。纳入的研究包括所有关于牙周治疗后牙齿敏感的研究，以及所有关于附着丧失后牙齿敏感的研究。排除任何与牙本质暴露无关的发病机制、遗传引起的疾病和骨折的牙齿敏感治疗。最终，102篇论文在综述中被评估、纳入并引用。
最常使用的术语是“牙齿敏感”。列出并更新了硬组织丧失的常见原因。硬组织的机械性丧失构成一组病因；牙龈退缩和附着丧失是另一组病因。考虑了手术干预、龈上洁治和根面平整，并且在大多数情况下作为联合程序进行。对不同方法进行了评估和批判性讨论。文献中没有适当的随机研究。所有流行病学研究的弱点是缺乏任何客观测量。关于牙周治疗，需要在医疗器械方面进行进一步的研究和开发工作，以及对激光技术的持续应用研究、针对专业人员的继续教育和培训项目。
