Suppr超能文献

系统评价和元分析:物理屏障预防牙本质脱矿

Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization.

机构信息

Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Bern, zmk Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.

Department of Surgery, Microsurgery and Medicine Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Sassari, Viale San Pietro 3/c, 07100, Sassari, Italy.

出版信息

Sci Rep. 2022 Oct 28;12(1):18194. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22132-0.

Abstract

The present review systematically analyzed in vitro and in situ studies investigating physical diffusion barriers (sealants, desensitizer or adhesives) to prevent the development or the progression of root (dentin) demineralization. Three electronic databases (PubMed-Medline, CENTRAL, Ovid-EMBASE) were screened for studies from 1946 to 2022. Cross-referencing was used to identify further articles. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. Languages were not restricted. The type of outcome was not restricted, and their mean differences (MD) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Risk of Bias was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 171 eligible studies, 34 were selected for full-text analysis evaluating 69 different materials, and 17 studies-still evaluating 36 different materials-were included (3 in situ and 14 in vitro). Ten studies evaluated desensitizers; 8 adhesives; and 1 infiltration. Meta-analyses were possible for all 17 studies. Meta-analyses revealed that lesion depth after no treatment was significantly higher than after the application of single-step adhesives (MD[CI] = - 49.82[- 69.34; - 30.30]) and multi-step adhesives (MD[CI]=-60.09 [-92.65, -27.54]). No significant differences in the lesion depth increase between single- and multi-step adhesives could be observed (MD[CI]=30.13 [-21.14, 81.39]). Furthermore, compared to no treatment the increase of the lesion depth was significantly hampered using desensitizers (MD[CI] = - 38.02[- 51.74; - 24.31]). Furthermore, the included studies presented unclear or high risk. A physical diffusion barrier can significantly hamper the increase of lesion depth under cariogenic conditions. Furthermore, multi-step adhesives seem not to be more effective than single-step adhesives. However, this conclusion is based on only few in vitro and in situ studies.

摘要

本综述系统分析了体外和体内研究,这些研究调查了物理扩散屏障(密封剂、脱敏剂或胶粘剂)以防止牙本质(牙本质)脱矿的发展或进展。从 1946 年到 2022 年,筛选了三个电子数据库(PubMed-Medline、CENTRAL、Ovid-EMBASE)中的研究。交叉参考用于确定其他文章。文章选择和数据提取都是重复进行的。语言不受限制。结果的类型不受限制,使用固定或随机效应模型计算其平均值差异(MD)。使用风险偏倚 2.0 工具对风险进行分级。从 171 项合格研究中,选择了 34 项进行全文分析,评估了 69 种不同的材料,有 17 项研究(仍在评估 36 种不同的材料)包括在内(3 项体内和 14 项体外)。10 项研究评估了脱敏剂;8 种胶粘剂;和 1 种渗透剂。所有 17 项研究都可以进行荟萃分析。荟萃分析显示,未经处理的病变深度明显高于单步胶粘剂(MD[CI]=-49.82[-69.34; -30.30])和多步胶粘剂(MD[CI]=-60.09 [-92.65, -27.54])。单步和多步胶粘剂之间的病变深度增加没有显著差异(MD[CI]=30.13 [-21.14, 81.39])。此外,与未经处理相比,使用脱敏剂可显著阻碍病变深度的增加(MD[CI]=-38.02[-51.74; -24.31])。此外,纳入的研究存在不明确或高风险。物理扩散屏障可以显著阻碍致龋条件下病变深度的增加。此外,多步胶粘剂似乎不如单步胶粘剂有效。然而,这一结论仅基于少数的体内和体外研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/66ff/9616813/01ebed882669/41598_2022_22132_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验