Seifo Nassar, Al-Yaseen Waraf, Innes Nicola
School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, Dundee, Scotland.
Evid Based Dent. 2018 Jun;19(2):42-43. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401301.
Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), the Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO), Cochrane Library and grey literature.Study selectionTwo reviewers selected randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of SDF application with other active treatments or placebo in arresting carious lesions.Data extraction and synthesisThree authors extracted data using customised extraction forms, and risk of bias was assessed by two independent reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed on studies classified at 'low' or 'unclear' risk of bias, where similar outcomes were recorded in primary teeth, and that compared SDF to active treatments.ResultsEleven studies were included; five studies were at 'low', two at 'unclear' and four studies at 'high' risk of bias. Eight were conducted with primary teeth, two with permanent first molars and one conducted on both. Six studies used 38% SDF, two 30% SDF, one 12% SDF, one compared 38% SDF to 12% SDF and one used Nano Silver Fluoride (NSF).ConclusionsSDF is more effective than active treatments or placebo for carious lesion arrest in primary teeth. The body of evidence was of high quality for primary teeth. However, there was not enough high quality evidence to draw conclusions about carious lesion arrest in first permanent molars.
数据来源
PubMed、Scopus、科学网、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献数据库(LILACS)、巴西牙科学图书馆(BBO)、考克兰图书馆及灰色文献。
研究选择
两名评审员筛选了比较应用含氟银胺(SDF)与其他活性治疗或安慰剂在阻止龋损方面疗效的随机临床试验(RCT)。
数据提取与综合分析
三位作者使用定制的提取表格提取数据,由两名独立评审员评估偏倚风险。对偏倚风险分类为“低”或“不清楚”、在乳牙中记录了相似结果且比较了SDF与活性治疗的研究进行荟萃分析。
结果
纳入11项研究;5项研究偏倚风险为“低”,2项为“不清楚”,4项为“高”。8项研究针对乳牙,2项针对恒牙第一磨牙,1项针对两者。6项研究使用38%的SDF,2项使用30%的SDF,1项使用12%的SDF,1项比较了38%的SDF与12%的SDF,1项使用纳米氟化银(NSF)。
结论
对于阻止乳牙龋损,SDF比活性治疗或安慰剂更有效。关于乳牙的证据质量较高。然而,没有足够的高质量证据就恒牙第一磨牙龋损的阻止得出结论。