Li Ting, Zhang Xiaolin, Shi Hong, Ma Zhe, Lv Bingjian, Xie Meng
Department of Pediatric Dentistry Stomatological Hospital, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Department of Epidemiology and Statistics, School of Public Health, Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, China.
Lasers Med Sci. 2019 Mar;34(2):273-280. doi: 10.1007/s10103-018-2582-x. Epub 2018 Jul 12.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to systematically evaluate the applications of Er:YAG lasers for the removal of caries and cavity preparation in children. The meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was conducted with data extracted from seven relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1997 to July 2017. The data heterogeneity of each study was assessed by a Q test. We used the heterogeneity results to calculate the standard mean difference (SMD) or relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) using STATA version 10.0. The publication bias was evaluated using Begger's test. There were seven randomized controlled trials included in this study. The analysis results indicate that compared to the conventional mechanical method, more time was needed for Er:YAG laser treatment (SMD 1.945, 95%CI 0.942 to 2.948). However, the pain reported by patients was reduced with Er:YAG laser treatment (SMD - 1.013, 95%CI - 1.892 to - 0.196). There were no significant differences between the groups in the complete retention rate (RR 1.021, 95%CI 0.963 to 1.114), the marginal discoloration (RR 1.638, 95% CI 0.240 to 11.986) and the marginal adaptation (RR 1.480, 95%CI 0.257 to 8.515). In conclusion, our data indicate that the time required for Er:YAG laser treatment was longer than that for the conventional mechanical method, but there was less pain associated with the Er:YAG laser treatment. There were no significant differences in the complete retention rate, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation between the two groups.
本荟萃分析的目的是系统评估铒激光在儿童龋齿去除和窝洞预备中的应用。该荟萃分析按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)进行,使用从1997年至2017年7月发表的七项相关随机对照试验(RCT)中提取的数据。通过Q检验评估每项研究的数据异质性。我们使用异质性结果,采用STATA 10.0版本计算标准化均数差(SMD)或相对危险度(RR)以及95%置信区间(95%CI)。使用Begger检验评估发表偏倚。本研究纳入了七项随机对照试验。分析结果表明,与传统机械方法相比,铒激光治疗需要更多时间(SMD 1.945,95%CI 0.942至2.948)。然而,铒激光治疗使患者报告的疼痛减轻(SMD -1.013,95%CI -1.892至-0.196)。两组在完全保留率(RR 1.021,95%CI 0.963至1.114)、边缘变色(RR 1.638,95%CI 0.240至11.986)和边缘适应性(RR 1.480,95%CI 0.257至8.515)方面无显著差异。总之,我们的数据表明,铒激光治疗所需时间比传统机械方法长,但铒激光治疗相关的疼痛较少。两组在完全保留率、边缘变色和边缘适应性方面无显著差异。