Day Peter F, Duggal Monty, Nazzal Hani
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds, UK, LS2 9LU.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Feb 5;2(2):CD006542. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006542.pub3.
Traumatic dental injuries are common. One of the most severe injuries is when a permanent tooth is knocked completely out of the mouth (avulsed). In most circumstances the tooth should be replanted as quickly as possible. There is uncertainty on which interventions will maximise the survival and repair of the replanted tooth. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010.
To compare the effects of a range of interventions for managing traumatised permanent front teeth with avulsion injuries.
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 March 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 March 2018), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 March 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 March 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
We considered randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that included a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, for interventions for avulsed and replanted permanent front teeth.
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Authors were contacted where further information about their study was required.
Four studies, involving a total of 183 participants and 257 teeth were identified. Each of the interventions aimed to reduce infection or alter the inflammatory response or both at the time of or shortly after the tooth or teeth were replanted. Each study assessed a different intervention and therefore it was not appropriate or possible to numerically synthesise the data. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One study at high risk of bias with 69 participants (138 teeth) compared a 20-minute soak with gentamycin sulphate for both groups prior to replantation with the experimental group receiving daily hyperbaric oxygen for 80 minutes for the first 10 days. There was some evidence of a benefit for the hyperbaric oxygen group in respect of periodontal healing, tooth survival, and pulpal healing.One study at unclear risk of bias with 22 participants (27 teeth) compared the use of two root canal medicaments, Ledermix and Ultracal. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for periodontal healing or tooth survival. This was the only study to formally report adverse events with none identified. Study authors reported that Ledermix caused a greater level of patient dissatisfaction with the colour of avulsed and replanted teeth.A third study at high risk of bias with 19 participants compared extra- or intra-oral endodontics for avulsed teeth which were stored dry for longer than 60 minutes before replantation. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in periodontal healing.The fourth study at high risk of bias with 73 participants compared a 10-minute soak in either thymosin alpha 1 or saline before replantation followed by daily gingival injections with these same medicaments for the first 7 days. There was some evidence of a benefit for thymosin alpha 1 with respect to periodontal healing and tooth survival.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the included studies, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of different interventions for avulsed and replanted permanent front teeth. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, and therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. There is urgent need for further well-designed randomised controlled trials.
牙外伤很常见。最严重的损伤之一是恒牙完全从口腔中脱出(牙脱位)。在大多数情况下,应尽快将牙齿再植。目前尚不确定哪种干预措施能最大限度地提高再植牙的存活率和修复效果。这是Cochrane系统评价的更新版,该评价首次发表于2010年。
比较一系列干预措施对脱位恒牙外伤再植的效果。
Cochrane口腔健康信息专家检索了以下数据库:Cochrane口腔健康试验注册库(截至2018年3月8日)、Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL;2018年第2期,检索于2018年3月8日)、MEDLINE Ovid(1946年至2018年3月8日)以及Embase Ovid(1980年至2018年3月8日)。检索了美国国立卫生研究院正在进行的试验注册库(ClinicalTrials.gov)和世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台,以查找正在进行的试验。检索电子数据库时,对语言和出版日期没有限制。
我们纳入了随机和半随机对照试验,这些试验对脱位并再植的恒牙进行干预,且随访期至少为12个月。
两位综述作者独立选择研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。如需有关其研究的更多信息,会与作者联系。
共纳入4项研究,涉及183名参与者和257颗牙齿。每项干预措施旨在在牙齿再植时或再植后不久减少感染或改变炎症反应或两者兼而有之。每项研究评估的干预措施不同,因此对数据进行数值合成既不合适也不可能。由于存在偏倚风险和结果不精确的问题,所有证据的质量都被评为极低。这意味着我们对本综述中呈现的所有结果都非常不确定。一项存在高偏倚风险的研究纳入了69名参与者(138颗牙齿),比较了两组在再植前用硫酸庆大霉素浸泡20分钟,其中试验组在最初10天每天接受80分钟的高压氧治疗。有一些证据表明高压氧组在牙周愈合、牙齿存活和牙髓愈合方面有获益。一项偏倚风险不明确的研究纳入了22名参与者(27颗牙齿),比较了两种根管药物Ledermix和Ultracal的使用。在牙周愈合或牙齿存活方面,没有足够证据表明两者存在差异。这是唯一一项正式报告不良事件的研究,未发现不良事件。研究作者报告称,Ledermix使患者对脱位再植牙齿的颜色满意度更低。第三项存在高偏倚风险的研究纳入了19名参与者,比较了脱位牙齿在再植前干燥保存超过60分钟后的口外或口内根管治疗。在牙周愈合方面,没有足够证据表明两者存在差异。第四项存在高偏倚风险的研究纳入了73名参与者,比较了再植前用胸腺素α1或生理盐水浸泡10分钟,然后在最初7天每天用相同药物进行牙龈注射。有一些证据表明胸腺素α1在牙周愈合和牙齿存活方面有获益。
基于纳入研究的结果,没有足够证据支持或反驳不同干预措施对脱位并再植的恒牙外伤的有效性。现有证据的总体质量非常低,因此在推广纳入试验的结果时应极为谨慎。迫切需要进一步设计良好的随机对照试验。