Bonfanti-Gris Monica, Pradies Guillermo, Moron-Conejo Belen, Gil Alfonso, Martinez-Rus Francisco
Analysis of Techniques, Material and Instruments Applied to Digital Dentistry and CAD/CAM Procedures Research Group, University Complutense of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Associate Faculty at University International of Catalunya, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, USA.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Mar;37(3):707-726. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13360. Epub 2024 Dec 2.
To evaluate the influence of horizontal and vertical dental preparation techniques on tooth-supported fixed restorations, with specific focus on survival and success rates, periodontal-related variables, and patient-reported outcome (PROs) measures.
A comprehensive literature search of relevant randomized and controlled clinical trials (RCTs/CCTs), prospective/retrospective cohort studies, and case series with a minimum follow-up period of 3 years was performed across electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane) up to January 2024. Primary outcomes included success and survival rates, and secondary outcomes included periodontal variables, both mechanical and biological complications, and PROs. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment. Of the 837 articles initially identified, 19 were included in the final analysis. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the preparation techniques using survival and success rates as the main outcomes. Additionally, periodontal variables were analyzed.
The included studies varied in design, follow-up duration, restoration type, and materials used. Survival rates showed no significant differences between vertical and horizontal techniques (risk ratio (RR) 0.96-1.04, p = 0.95). Additionally, success rates (RR 0.93-1.14, p = 0.53) and periodontal variables also showed varied results with no clear preference for either technique.
Both the horizontal and vertical preparation techniques exhibited comparable survival and success rates for dental restorations. Given that there was no significant difference in outcomes between the two, the choice of technique may depend on the clinician's preference and specific clinical scenarios.
评估水平和垂直牙体预备技术对牙支持式固定修复体的影响,特别关注生存率和成功率、牙周相关变量以及患者报告结局(PROs)指标。
截至2024年1月,通过电子数据库(Medline、Embase和Cochrane)对相关随机对照临床试验(RCTs/CCTs)、前瞻性/回顾性队列研究以及随访期至少为3年的病例系列进行了全面的文献检索。主要结局包括成功率和生存率,次要结局包括牙周变量、机械和生物并发症以及PROs。两名 reviewers 独立进行研究筛选、数据提取和质量评估。在最初识别的837篇文章中,19篇纳入最终分析。进行荟萃分析以比较以生存率和成功率作为主要结局的预备技术。此外,还对牙周变量进行了分析。
纳入的研究在设计、随访时长、修复类型和所用材料方面存在差异。垂直和水平技术之间的生存率无显著差异(风险比(RR)0.96 - 1.04,p = 0.95)。此外,成功率(RR 0.93 - 1.14,p = 0.53)和牙周变量也呈现出不同的结果,对两种技术均无明显偏好。
水平和垂直预备技术在牙修复体的生存率和成功率方面表现相当。鉴于两者在结局上无显著差异,技术的选择可能取决于临床医生的偏好和具体临床情况。