Unité de Recherches en Biomatériaux Innovants et Interfaces (URB2i) - EA442, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité and Service d'odontologie, Hôpital Albert Chenevier, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris, France.
Dental Biomaterials Research Unit (d-BRU) and Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Institute of Dentistry, University of Liège (ULiège) and University of Liège Hospital (CHU), Liège, Belgium.
Dent Mater. 2018 Jun;34(6):825-850. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.002. Epub 2018 Apr 4.
This study aims to systematically review the different methods used for wear measurement of dental tissues and materials in clinical studies, their relevance and reliability in terms of accuracy and precision, and the performance of the different steps of the workflow taken independently.
An exhaustive search of clinical studies related to wear of dental tissues and materials reporting a quantitative measurement method was conducted. MedLine, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were used. Prospective studies, pilot studies and case series (>10 patients), as long as they contained a description of wear measurement methodology. Only studies published after 1995 were considered.
After duplicates' removal, 495 studies were identified, and 41 remained for quantitative analysis. Thirty-four described wear-measurement protocols, using digital profilometry and superimposition, whereas 7 used alternative protocols. A specific form was designed to analyze the risk of bias. The methods were described in terms of material analyzed; study design; device used for surface acquisition; matching software details and settings; type of analysis (vertical height-loss measurement vs volume loss measurement); type of area investigated (entire occlusal area or selective areas); and results.
There is a need of standardization of clinical wear measurement. Current methods exhibit accuracy, which is not sufficient to monitor wear of restorative materials and tooth tissues. Their performance could be improved, notably limiting the use of replicas, using standardized calibration procedures and positive controls, optimizing the settings of scanners and matching softwares, and taking into account unusable data.
本研究旨在系统地回顾临床研究中用于测量牙体和材料磨损的不同方法，评估其在准确性和精密度方面的相关性和可靠性，并独立评估工作流程的不同步骤的性能。
对报道定量测量方法的与牙体和材料磨损相关的临床研究进行了全面检索。使用了 MedLine、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 数据库。只要包含磨损测量方法描述，前瞻性研究、初步研究和病例系列（>10 例）都被纳入。仅考虑 1995 年后发表的研究。
去除重复项后，共识别出 495 项研究，其中 41 项研究用于定量分析。其中 34 项描述了磨损测量方案，使用数字轮廓测量和叠加，而 7 项使用了替代方案。专门设计了一种表格来分析偏倚风险。方法根据分析的材料、研究设计、用于表面获取的设备、匹配软件的详细信息和设置、分析类型（垂直高度损失测量与体积损失测量）、研究区域类型（整个咬合区或选择性区域）和结果进行描述。
需要对临床磨损测量进行标准化。目前的方法具有准确性，但不足以监测修复材料和牙体的磨损。其性能可以得到改善，特别是通过限制使用复制品、使用标准化的校准程序和阳性对照、优化扫描仪和匹配软件的设置以及考虑不可用的数据。
