Liang Yuee, Deng Zilong, Dai Xingzhu, Tian Jinhui, Zhao Wanghong
Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu, China.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Nov;22(8):2675-2684. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2605-9. Epub 2018 Sep 20.
The aim of this study was to further evaluate the caries-arresting effectiveness of micro-invasive interventions for non-cavitated proximal caries and analyze their efficacy for caries lesions of different depths.
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of micro-invasive interventions for non-cavitated proximal caries were included in this study. We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science on May 25, 2017, without restrictions. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, a meta-analysis of the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and a publication bias analysis were conducted using Stata 12.0.
After 2195 citations were screened, 8 citations of seven studies with follow-up periods from 12 to 36 months were included. The subgroup analysis showed that resin infiltration and resin sealant, but not glass ionomer cement (GIC), could reduce the caries progression rate (resin infiltration: OR = 0.15, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.24; resin sealant: OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.58; GIC: OR = 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.65). Further analysis of their efficacies for caries lesions of different depths indicated that resin infiltration could arrest progression of enamel caries and caries around the enamel-dentin junction (EDJ) (enamel: OR = 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35; EDJ: OR = 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.70). However, when the outer third of the dentin was involved, resin infiltration yielded significantly different results compared with the control group (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.10). Resin sealant seemed to be ineffective regardless of the caries depth (enamel: OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.00; EDJ: OR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.15; dentin: OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.63).
Resin infiltration is effective in arresting the progression of non-cavitated proximal caries involved in EDJ, while the therapeutic effects of resin sealant for different caries depths still needs to be further confirmed.
Based on existing evidence, dentists should carefully select appropriate micro-invasive interventions according to the different depths of non-cavitated proximal caries.
本研究旨在进一步评估微创干预对非龋洞型邻面龋的防龋效果,并分析其对不同深度龋损的疗效。
本研究纳入了非龋洞型邻面龋微创干预的随机临床试验(RCT)。2017年5月25日,我们在Cochrane图书馆、PubMed、Embase和科学网进行了检索,无任何限制。在重复研究筛选、数据提取和偏倚风险评估后,使用Stata 12.0进行了比值比(OR)的荟萃分析及95%置信区间(95%CI)分析,并进行了发表偏倚分析。
在筛选了2195条文献后,纳入了7项研究的8篇文献,随访期为12至36个月。亚组分析表明,树脂浸润和树脂封闭剂可降低龋病进展率,但玻璃离子水门汀(GIC)不能(树脂浸润:OR = 0.15,95%CI 0.09至0.24;树脂封闭剂:OR = 0.33,95%CI 0.19至0.58;GIC:OR = 0.13,95%CI 0.01至2.65)。对其对不同深度龋损疗效的进一步分析表明,树脂浸润可阻止釉质龋和釉牙本质界(EDJ)周围龋的进展(釉质:OR = 0.05,95%CI 0.01至0.35;EDJ:OR = 0.07,95%CI 0.01至0.70)。然而,当牙本质外三分之一受累时,树脂浸润与对照组相比结果有显著差异(OR = 0.42,95%CI 0.16至1.10)。无论龋损深度如何,树脂封闭剂似乎均无效(釉质:OR = 0.62,95%CI 0.13至3.00;EDJ:OR = 0.44,95%CI 0.09至2.15;牙本质:OR = 0.43,95%CI 0.07至2.63)。
树脂浸润对阻止累及EDJ的非龋洞型邻面龋进展有效,而树脂封闭剂对不同深度龋损的治疗效果仍需进一步证实。
基于现有证据,牙医应根据非龋洞型邻面龋的不同深度仔细选择合适的微创干预措施。