New York University, New York, NY.
Advanced Education Program in Implant Dentistry, Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, Loma Linda, CA.
J Prosthodont. 2021 Apr;30(S1):61-63. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13314.
The objective of this Critically Appraised Topic was to determine the level of evidence relative to the usefulness of the Frankfort mandibular plane angle in prosthodontic treatment.
The Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) mesh heading received zero PubMed references, as did Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle (FMA) as a determinant for dental occlusion and Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle as a determinant of the occlusal scheme. Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle alone received 168 PubMed citations that highlighted 2 DiPietro articles and a third from the orthodontics literature which was a Randomized Controlled Trial not relevant to the PICO. Four others, three prosthodontic and one orthodontic publication, were related to the PICO. A Google search revealed one additional article, which was a narrative review.
Nine articles were related to the search, 2 of which were clinical trials that revealed no evidence to support the use of FMA as a diagnostic test.
Based on the limited data presented above, there is a lack of evidence to support the use of FMA as a diagnostic procedure to predict outcomes, or dictate prosthodontic treatment.
本批判性评价专题旨在确定法兰克福下颌平面角在修复治疗中有用性的相关证据水平。
患者干预比较结局（PICO）网格标题在 PubMed 中没有收到任何参考文献，法兰克福下颌平面角（FMA）作为确定咬合的决定因素和法兰克福下颌平面角作为咬合方案的决定因素也是如此。法兰克福下颌平面角本身收到了 168 篇 PubMed 引用，其中突出了 DiPietro 的 2 篇文章和一篇来自正畸文献的文章，这是一项与 PICO 无关的随机对照试验。另外 4 篇，3 篇为修复学出版物，1 篇为正畸学出版物，与 PICO 相关。谷歌搜索显示了另外一篇文章，是一篇叙述性综述。
有 9 篇文章与搜索相关，其中 2 篇为临床试验，没有证据表明 FMA 可作为诊断测试使用。
根据上述有限的数据，没有证据支持使用 FMA 作为预测结果或决定修复治疗的诊断程序。
Zotero 插件