Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (CNS), Wenzhou, China.
Department of Stomatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University (CNS), Wenzhou, China,
Am J Dent. 2020 Dec;33(6):296-304.
To systematically evaluate the accuracy of clinical applications of digital guides.
First, PubMed and Embase databases were searched using the PICO standard. Eligible articles were included. Second, the eligible articles were classified according to the different types. Next, the NOS and ROB2 as evaluation indicators were used to evaluate the bias of those included articles. Finally, sensitive factors were excluded through the outcomes and data analyses were retrieved.
More than 1,562 articles were retrieved, and 38 in vivo research documents were systematically analyzed after screening according to the inclusion criteria, which mainly listed three aspects of the coronal, apical, and angular implant data, and integrated the same type of articles in the study. To test its heterogeneity, the P-values of those articles included in the analysis were all less than 0.05. Finally, in the comparison between the guide group and the free-hand group after excluding sensitive factors, the standardized mean difference (Std.MD) of the angle was 1.26 (95% CI 1.06, 1.47), the Std.MD of the apical point was 1.38 (95% CI 1.12, 1.63), and the Std.MD of the coronal point was 0.98 (95% CI 0.66, 1.29). Comparing the maxillary and mandibular groups after excluding sensitive factors, the Std.MD of the coronal point was -0.31 (95% CI -0.52, -0.09), the Std.MD of the apical point was -0.15 (95% CI -0.34, 0.03), and the Std.MD of the angle is -0.23 (95% CI -0.46, 0.01). Comparison between the smoking group and the nonsmoking group, and between the flap group and the flapless group showed that there was not enough evidence to make a reliable assessment.
Compared with free-hand operation, a digital guide is more accurate in the apex, the coronal point and the angle, and the accuracy in the angle was very high. The difference in accuracy between the maxillary and mandibular groups was not statistically significant. Other factors such as smoking habit and flap need more clinical data.
系统评估数字化导板在临床应用中的准确性。
首先,使用 PICO 标准检索 PubMed 和 Embase 数据库。纳入符合条件的文章。其次,根据不同类型对纳入的文章进行分类。然后,使用 NOS 和 ROB2 作为评价指标来评估纳入文章的偏倚。最后,通过结果排除敏感因素并提取数据进行分析。
通过筛选符合纳入标准的 1562 篇文章,系统分析了 38 篇体内研究文献,主要列出了三个方面的牙冠、根尖和角度植入物数据,并整合了研究中的同类型文章。为了检验其异质性,分析中纳入的文章的 P 值均小于 0.05。最后,在排除敏感因素后比较导板组和徒手组,角度的标准化均数差(Std.MD)为 1.26(95%CI 1.06,1.47),根尖点的 Std.MD 为 1.38(95%CI 1.12,1.63),牙冠点的 Std.MD 为 0.98(95%CI 0.66,1.29)。排除敏感因素后比较上颌和下颌组,牙冠点的 Std.MD 为-0.31(95%CI-0.52,-0.09),根尖点的 Std.MD 为-0.15(95%CI-0.34,0.03),角度的 Std.MD 为-0.23(95%CI-0.46,0.01)。比较吸烟组和非吸烟组以及有瓣组和无瓣组,结果显示没有足够的证据进行可靠评估。
与徒手操作相比,数字化导板在根尖、牙冠点和角度上更准确,且角度的准确性非常高。上颌和下颌组之间的准确性差异无统计学意义。吸烟习惯和瓣等其他因素需要更多的临床数据。