Keys William, Carson Susan J
School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Scotland.
Evid Based Dent. 2017 Mar;18(1):19-20. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401221.
Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, LILACS, SciELO, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, OpenGrey and Sciencepaper Online databases. Handsearches in a number of journals.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials, including split-mouth studies assessing the effects of rubber dam isolation for restorative treatments in dental patients.Data extraction and synthesisTwo review authors independently screened the results of the electronic searches, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies.ResultsFour studies involving a total of 1,270 patients were included. The studies were at high risk of bias. One trial was excluded from the analysis due to inconsistencies in the presented data. Restorations had a significantly higher survival rate in the rubber dam isolation group compared to the cotton roll isolation group at six months in participants receiving composite restorative treatment of non-carious cervical lesions (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.37, very low-quality evidence). The rubber dam group had a lower risk of failure at two years in children undergoing proximal atraumatic restorative treatment in primary molars (hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, very low-quality evidence). One trial reported limited data showing that rubber dam usage during fissure sealing might shorten the treatment time. None of the included studies mentioned adverse effects or reported the direct cost of the treatment, or the level of patient acceptance/satisfaction. There was also no evidence evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on the quality of the restorations.ConclusionsWe found some very low-quality evidence, from single studies, suggesting that rubber dam usage in dental direct restorative treatments may lead to a lower failure rate of the restorations, compared with the failure rate for cotton roll usage. Further high quality research evaluating the effects of rubber dam usage on different types of restorative treatments is required.
数据来源
考科蓝口腔健康试验注册库、考科蓝对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(Medline)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)、拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS)、科学电子图书馆在线数据库(SciELO)、中国生物医学文献数据库、维普资讯网、中国知网、美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov)、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台、OpenGrey及中国科技论文在线数据库。对多种期刊进行手工检索。
研究选择
随机对照试验,包括评估橡皮障隔离对牙科患者修复治疗效果的半口对照研究。
数据提取与综合分析
两名综述作者独立筛选电子检索结果,提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
结果
纳入4项研究,共涉及1270例患者。这些研究存在较高的偏倚风险。由于所呈现的数据不一致,1项试验被排除在分析之外。在接受非龋性颈部病变复合修复治疗的参与者中,橡皮障隔离组修复体在6个月时的生存率显著高于棉卷隔离组(风险比(RR)1.19,95%置信区间(CI)1.04至1.37,极低质量证据)。在接受乳磨牙近中无创修复治疗的儿童中,橡皮障组在2年时失败风险较低(风险比(HR)0.80,95%CI 0.66至0.97,极低质量证据)。1项试验报告的数据有限,表明在窝沟封闭过程中使用橡皮障可能会缩短治疗时间。纳入的研究均未提及不良反应或报告治疗的直接成本,或患者接受度/满意度水平。也没有证据评估使用橡皮障对修复体质量的影响。
结论
我们从单项研究中发现了一些极低质量的证据,表明在牙科直接修复治疗中使用橡皮障与使用棉卷相比,可能会降低修复体的失败率。需要进一步开展高质量研究,评估使用橡皮障对不同类型修复治疗的影响。