Mugri Maryam H, Sayed Mohammed E, Nedumgottil Binoy Mathews, Bhandi Shilpa, Raj A Thirumal, Testarelli Luca, Khurshid Zohaib, Jain Saurabh, Patil Shankargouda
Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.
Materials (Basel). 2021 Nov 8;14(21):6733. doi: 10.3390/ma14216733.
Crown lengthening surgery and deep margin elevation are two distinct approaches used to manage decayed teeth. This systematic review examined the survival rate of badly decayed teeth when restored using the crown lengthening technique and compared it to the deep margin elevation technique. The search was conducted during July 2020 and then again updated at the end of July 2021, and no restriction concerning publication status and time was applied during the search. Cochrane Database, EBSCO, Scopus, and Medline databases were searched electronically for relevant literature. Google Scholar was used as a secondary source. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select the relevant articles. PRISMA guidelines were followed. The focused PICO question was: 'Does the crown lengthening technique (I) provide a better survival rate (O) than deep margin elevation technique (C) following the restoration of badly decayed teeth (P).' A total of six articles were included after performing screening based on the eligibility criteria. Four studies focused on crown lengthening while two focused on deep margin elevation technique. A majority of the studies showed a high risk of bias owing to methodological insufficiencies. Crown lengthening (CL) treated cases showed a change in the free gingival margin at six months post-surgery. A tissue rebound was seen that was correlated to the periodontal biotype. Teeth treated with the deep margin elevation (DME) technique showed high survivability. There is a lack of high-quality trials examining surgical comparisons between CL and DME with long-term follow-up. Patient- and dentist-reported outcomes have not been given adequate consideration in the literature. Based on the limited evidence, it can be concluded that for restorative purposes, crown lengthening surgery can be successful in long-term retention of restored teeth. However, the deep margin elevation technique has a better survival ratio. Future well-designed and executed research will have an effect on the evidence and level of certainty for the best approach to treating severely decayed teeth.
牙冠延长术和深部边缘提升术是用于处理龋坏牙齿的两种不同方法。本系统评价研究了使用牙冠延长技术修复严重龋坏牙齿后的生存率,并将其与深部边缘提升技术进行比较。检索于2020年7月进行,随后在2021年7月底再次更新,检索过程中未对发表状态和时间施加限制。通过电子方式在Cochrane数据库、EBSCO、Scopus和Medline数据库中检索相关文献。谷歌学术被用作辅助来源。使用预定义的纳入和排除标准选择相关文章。遵循PRISMA指南。聚焦的PICO问题是:“在修复严重龋坏牙齿(P)后,牙冠延长技术(I)是否比深部边缘提升技术(C)提供更高的生存率(O)。” 根据纳入标准进行筛选后,共纳入6篇文章。4项研究聚焦于牙冠延长术,2项聚焦于深部边缘提升技术。由于方法学上的不足,大多数研究显示存在较高的偏倚风险。接受牙冠延长术(CL)治疗的病例在术后6个月时游离龈缘出现变化。观察到与牙周生物型相关的组织反弹。采用深部边缘提升术(DME)治疗的牙齿显示出较高的生存率。缺乏对CL和DME进行手术比较并进行长期随访的高质量试验。文献中未充分考虑患者和牙医报告的结果。基于有限的证据,可以得出结论,出于修复目的,牙冠延长术在长期保留修复牙齿方面可能是成功的。然而,深部边缘提升技术的生存率更高。未来设计良好且执行得当的研究将对治疗严重龋坏牙齿的最佳方法的证据和确定性水平产生影响。