Zhu Jia Jun, Tang Alexander T H, Matinlinna Jukka P, Hägg Urban
Research postgraduate student, Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
Clinical Assistant Professor, Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug;112(2):122-35. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.024. Epub 2014 Feb 14.
The laboratory-based enamel acid-etching doctrine with 30% to 50% phosphoric acid for 60 seconds to generate the maximum amount of Type 1 and/or Type 2 etch pattern has been established for more than 30 years. However, this recommendation may not be clinically relevant.
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinically accepted protocols of enamel acid etching with the laboratory protocol.
Studies were identified by searching 4 electronic databases: Medline, CINAHL Plus, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The final search was run on November 8, 2012. All clinical studies published in English that investigated enamel acid pretreatment methods on human permanent teeth were included. Additional publications were obtained from the reference lists of the included studies. The clinical evidence of all included studies was tabulated.
Initially, 4543 publications were retrieved from the databases. A total of 4508 articles were excluded, including 2285 duplicates, 1805 publications according to exclusion criteria by their titles and abstracts, 368 laboratory articles, 49 reviews, and 1 pilot study. Only 1 study was added from reference lists of the included studies. Finally, 36 clinical publications were included. The included clinical studies provided different levels of clinical evidence on the efficacy of acid-etching protocols to enable successful enamel adhesion.
Clinical protocols of enamel acid etching differ from the laboratory-generated doctrine, which may imply that maximization of the Type 1 and/or Type 2 etch pattern is not important in the clinical acid etching of human enamel.
基于实验室的牙釉质酸蚀学说，即使用30%至50%的磷酸酸蚀60秒以产生最大量的1型和/或2型酸蚀模式，已经确立了30多年。然而，这一建议可能与临床实际情况不符。
本系统评价的目的是将临床上被认可的牙釉质酸蚀方案与实验室方案进行比较。
通过检索4个电子数据库来识别研究：医学文献数据库（Medline）、护理学与健康领域数据库（CINAHL Plus）、荷兰医学文摘数据库（Embase）和考科蓝图书馆（Cochrane Library）。最终检索于2012年11月8日进行。纳入所有以英文发表的、研究人类恒牙牙釉质预处理方法的临床研究。从纳入研究的参考文献列表中获取其他出版物。将所有纳入研究的临床证据制成表格。
最初，从数据库中检索到4543篇出版物。总共排除了4508篇文章，包括2285篇重复文章、1805篇根据标题和摘要的排除标准被排除的出版物、368篇实验室文章、49篇综述和1项初步研究。仅从纳入研究的参考文献列表中增加了1项研究。最终，纳入36篇临床出版物。纳入的临床研究提供了关于酸蚀方案使牙釉质成功黏附有效性的不同水平的临床证据。
牙釉质酸蚀的临床方案与实验室得出的学说不同，这可能意味着在人类牙釉质的临床酸蚀中，1型和/或2型酸蚀模式的最大化并不重要。
