Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Medical Centre for Dentistry, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg (Campus Giessen), Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022 Oct;23(5):761-776. doi: 10.1007/s40368-022-00744-4. Epub 2022 Sep 3.
To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the management of carious primary teeth supporting the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guideline development.
Four electronic databases were systematically searched up to December 28th, 2020. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth after pulp therapy were included. Failure rate, annual failure rate (AFR) and reasons for failure were recorded. Studies were sorted by restorative materials. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) was used for quality assessment.
After identification of 1685 articles and screening of 41 papers from EAPD review group 1, 5 RCTs were included. Restored primary molars with pulpotomy presented the following AFRs: composite resin (CR) 0%, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) 2.4-2.5%, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement combined with CR 3.8%, compomer 8.9%, and amalgam 14.3%. Maxillary primary incisors receiving pulpectomy exhibited AFRs of 0-2.3% for composite strip crowns (CSCs) depending on the post chosen. Reasons for failure were secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention and fracture of restoration. All studies were classified as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible given the clinical/methodological heterogeneity amongst studies.
Considering any limitations of this review, CR and PMCs can be recommended for primary molars after pulpotomy, and CSCs for primary incisors receiving pulpectomy. However, a need for further well-designed RCTs was observed.
系统评价龋损乳牙牙髓治疗后修复材料的临床性能。这是针对龋损乳牙管理的修复材料临床有效性的系统评价的第 2 部分,为欧洲儿童牙科学会(EAPD)指南的制定提供了支持。
系统检索了截至 2020 年 12 月 28 日的 4 个电子数据库,纳入了关于牙髓治疗后用于修复龋损乳牙的修复材料的随机对照临床试验(RCT)。记录了失败率、年失败率(AFR)和失败原因。研究按修复材料进行分类。使用 Cochrane 随机对照试验偏倚风险工具(RoB 2.0)进行质量评估。
在确定了 1685 篇文章并筛选了 EAPD 第 1 组的 41 篇文章后,纳入了 5 项 RCT。行牙髓切断术的患牙的 AFR 为:复合树脂(CR)0%,预成金属冠(PMC)2.4-2.5%,树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀联合 CR 3.8%,复合体 8.9%,银汞合金 14.3%。行牙髓摘除术的上颌乳切牙的 AFR 取决于所选择的桩,复合树脂带冠(CSC)为 0-2.3%。失败的原因包括继发龋、边缘不密合、固位丧失和修复体折裂。所有研究均被归类为高偏倚风险。由于研究之间存在临床/方法学异质性,因此无法进行 meta 分析。
考虑到本综述的任何局限性,CR 和 PMC 可推荐用于牙髓切断术后的乳磨牙,CSC 可用于牙髓摘除术后的乳切牙。然而,仍需要进一步进行设计良好的 RCT。