Doctoral student, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Positive University (UP), Curitiba, Brazil.
Professor, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Positive University (UP), Curitiba, Brazil.
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jun;121(6):887-894.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.004. Epub 2019 Jan 5.
The association between tooth type, location in the dental arch, and selection of a post-and-core system for endodontically treated teeth is unclear. Information on the influence of these parameters on the failure rate of teeth treated with post-and-core restorations is needed.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence on the failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations.
A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, Cochrane Library, and Gray literature for randomized clinical trials comparing the failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies.
The search strategy identified 2526 articles, and 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference in the failure rate of post-and-core restorations placed in anterior and posterior teeth was found in most studies. The risk ratio for anterior versus posterior teeth was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.64; P=.79). The risk ratio for incisors versus canines was 3.08 (95% CI, 0.56-17.04; P=.20) and that for premolars versus molars was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.12-1.74; P=.25). The risk ratio for prefabricated glass fiber posts on anterior versus posterior teeth was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.09; P=.70) and that for metal posts was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.64-1.91; P=.72).
The failure rates in anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations were similar at short- to medium-term follow-up. More well-designed clinical trials comparing the survival and failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations with longer follow-up times are needed.
牙型、牙弓位置与牙髓治疗后桩核系统选择之间的关系尚不清楚。需要了解这些参数对桩核修复治疗后牙齿失败率的影响。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估有关前牙和后牙用桩核修复治疗后失败率的现有证据。
在 PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、拉丁美洲和加勒比健康科学文献数据库、巴西牙科图书馆、Cochrane 图书馆和灰色文献中进行了搜索,以比较用桩核修复治疗的前牙和后牙的失败率的随机临床试验。使用 Cochrane 协作组的偏倚风险工具评估研究质量。
搜索策略确定了 2526 篇文章,其中 6 项研究纳入荟萃分析。大多数研究中,前牙和后牙的桩核修复失败率没有差异。前牙与后牙的风险比为 1.06(95%置信区间 [CI],0.69-1.64;P=.79)。切牙与尖牙的风险比为 3.08(95%CI,0.56-17.04;P=.20),前磨牙与磨牙的风险比为 0.45(95%CI,0.12-1.74;P=.25)。前牙预制玻璃纤维桩与后牙的风险比为 1.13(95%CI,0.61-2.09;P=.70),金属桩的风险比为 1.10(95%CI,0.64-1.91;P=.72)。
在短期至中期随访中,前牙和后牙用桩核修复治疗后的失败率相似。需要更多设计良好的临床试验,比较前牙和后牙用桩核修复治疗后具有更长随访时间的生存和失败率。