Int J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan/Feb;32(1):59-65. doi: 10.11607/ijp.6099.
To evaluate and compare the failure and complication risks of porcelain laminate and indirect resin veneer restorations (VRs) by means of a meta-analysis.
An electronic database search was performed in MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases, and a gray literature search was performed on OpenGrey. All database searches were completed by March 2018. Two authors individually screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality and risk of bias of the included studies were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (CHSRI). The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to synthesize the data of the included studies. All statistical analyses were performed using the software Stata 14.0, and the results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
Five studies-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three clinical controlled trials (CCTs)-were included in this review. Of the three CCTs, two were assessed to be low quality, and the third was considered high quality. The two RCTs were rated as unclear risk of bias. The meta-analysis results showed the risk of failure for indirect resin VRs was higher than for porcelain laminate VRs (RR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.06-0.40; P = .000). Fracture and debonding were the main complications leading to failure. For risk of fracture, an RR of 0.18 (95% CI: 0.04-0.71) and a statistically significant difference (P = .015) were found in favor of porcelain laminate VRs. For risk of debonding, there was no statistically significant difference (P = .108) found between the two types of VRs. The results of the sensitivity analysis (RR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.02-0.45; P = .004) suggested that this conclusion was reliable.
The survival rate of porcelain laminate VRs was higher than indirect resin VRs, and the latter had a higher risk of fracture. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of debonding between the two types of VRs. Porcelain laminate VRs have a better prognosis compared to indirect resin VRs, which provides an evidence-based reference for the selection of VRs in clinical practice.
通过荟萃分析评估和比较瓷贴面和间接树脂贴面修复体（VR）的失败和并发症风险。
在 MEDLINE（PubMed）、EMBASE（Ovid）和 Cochrane 对照试验中心注册数据库（CENTRAL）数据库中进行电子数据库检索，并在 OpenGrey 上进行灰色文献检索。所有数据库检索均于 2018 年 3 月完成。两位作者根据纳入和排除标准单独筛选文献。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表（NOS）和 Cochrane 干预系统评价手册（CHSRI）评估纳入研究的质量和偏倚风险。采用 Mantel-Haenszel 法对纳入研究的数据进行综合。所有统计分析均使用 Stata 14.0 软件进行，结果表示为风险比（RR）及其 95%置信区间（CI）。
本综述纳入了 5 项研究——2 项随机对照试验（RCT）和 3 项临床对照试验（CCT）。其中 3 项 CCT 被评为低质量，第 3 项被评为高质量。2 项 RCT 被评为不确定偏倚风险。荟萃分析结果显示，间接树脂 VR 的失败风险高于瓷贴面 VR（RR：0.15，95%CI：0.06-0.40；P=0.000）。断裂和脱粘是导致失败的主要并发症。对于断裂风险，瓷贴面 VR 的 RR 为 0.18（95%CI：0.04-0.71），差异有统计学意义（P=0.015）。对于脱粘风险，两种 VR 之间无统计学差异（P=0.108）。敏感性分析结果（RR：0.09，95%CI：0.02-0.45；P=0.004）表明，这一结论是可靠的。
瓷贴面 VR 的存活率高于间接树脂 VR，后者的断裂风险更高。然而，两种 VR 的脱粘风险无统计学差异。与间接树脂 VR 相比，瓷贴面 VR 的预后更好，为临床实践中 VR 的选择提供了循证参考。
