Oper Dent. 2017 Nov/Dec;42(6):E197-E213. doi: 10.2341/16-390-L.
To investigate the association between preparation designs and prognosis of porcelain laminate veneers (PLVs).
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials and retrospective and prospective cohort studies comparing any two of three preparation designs. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled hazard ratios and risk ratios were used to evaluate the difference between two preparation designs. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis, and evaluation of publication bias were performed if possible.
Of 415 screened articles, 10 studies with moderate to high quality were included in the meta-analysis. Comparison of preparations with incisal coverage to preparations without coverage revealed a significant result based on time-to-event data (hazard ratio=1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.18-2.78, I=12.5%), but the result was insignificant based on dichotomous data (risk ratio=1.04, 95% CI=0.59-1.83, I=42.3%). The other comparisons between any two of overlap, butt-joint, and window types revealed no statistically significant difference. Subgroup analyses regarding the porcelain materials, location of prosthesis, and tooth vitality could account for only part of the heterogeneity. No evidence of publication bias was observed.
Within the limitation of the present study, it can be concluded that preparation design with incisal coverage for PLVs exhibits an increased failure risk compared to those without incisal coverage. The failure risk of the overlap type may be higher than the butt-joint type but must be validated in further studies.
探讨预备设计与瓷贴面预后的关系。
电子和手动检索 Medline、Embase、CENTRAL 和 Scopus 数据库,以比较三种预备设计中任意两种的随机对照试验和回顾性及前瞻性队列研究。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估纳入研究的质量。使用合并风险比和比值比评估两种预备设计之间的差异。如果可能,进行亚组分析、敏感性分析和发表偏倚评估。
在筛选出的 415 篇文章中,有 10 项研究质量为中等到高,被纳入荟萃分析。基于生存数据的比较(风险比=1.81,95%置信区间[CI]为 1.18-2.78,I=12.5%),有牙切缘覆盖的预备设计与无牙切缘覆盖的预备设计相比,结果具有统计学意义,但基于二项数据的比较(风险比=1.04,95%置信区间[CI]为 0.59-1.83,I=42.3%),结果无统计学意义。其他任何两种重叠、对接和窗口类型的比较均未显示出统计学差异。关于瓷材料、修复体位置和牙齿活力的亚组分析只能部分解释异质性。未发现发表偏倚的证据。
在本研究的限制范围内,可以得出结论,与无牙切缘覆盖的预备设计相比,有牙切缘覆盖的瓷贴面预备设计失败风险增加。重叠型的失败风险可能高于对接型,但需要进一步研究证实。