Suppr超能文献

采用直接和间接微创概念修复磨损牙列——一项系统评价与Meta分析

Rehabilitation of the Worn Dentition With Direct and Indirect Minimally Invasive Concepts-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Chantler Jennifer G M, Pirc Miha, Strauss Franz J, Rohr Nadja, Thoma Daniel S, Ioannidis Alexis

机构信息

Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Private Practice, Perth, Australia.

出版信息

J Esthet Restor Dent. 2025 Mar;37(3):690-701. doi: 10.1111/jerd.13384. Epub 2024 Dec 13.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To report and compare the survival of minimally invasive direct and indirect restorations of different materials for restoring the worn dentition.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in six databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, VHL, and EMBASE. The eligibility criteria of this systematic review used the PICO framework to address the following research question: "In dentate patients with a worn dentition (P), does rehabilitating their lost tooth structure with indirect restorations (I) or direct (C) effect the survival and success of treatment (O)?". Study characteristics, survival rates of the restorations were extracted from each article. No language restrictions were applied. Survival and prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effect models.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 5009 entries, resulting in 14 publications selected for full-text analysis. These included 2 RCTs, 7 prospective, and 5 retrospective studies, with a varying level of methodological quality. This included 52% direct and 48% indirect restorations, using varying materials and follow-up periods. The survival of direct composite resin restorations versus indirect manually processed composite resin restorations showed no significant difference (n = 2; OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 0.64-5.05]; p = 0.270). For the prospective articles, the pooled prevalence estimates of the survival restorations were; direct (n = 3; 99% [95% CI, 0.97-1.00]) and; indirect (n = 5; 100% [95% CI, 0.99-1.00]). Lithium disilicate recorded the least amount of failures at 1.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the survival estimates of indirect manually processed and direct composite resins were not significantly different, indirect restorations-especially those made of lithium disilicate ceramic-may offer better survival rates, compared to direct resin restorations in patients with worn dentition.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Despite the limited evidence, indirect ceramic restorations appear to be well-suited for long-term treatment of worn dentition, whilst direct composite resin restorations are more suited as an medium-term solution.

摘要

目的

报告并比较不同材料的微创直接修复和间接修复用于修复磨损牙列的生存率。

材料与方法

在六个数据库中进行系统检索:MEDLINE、科学网、Scopus、CENTRAL、VHL和EMBASE。本系统评价的纳入标准采用PICO框架来解决以下研究问题:“在牙列磨损的有牙患者中(P),使用间接修复体(I)或直接修复体(C)修复其缺失的牙体结构是否会影响治疗的生存率和成功率(O)?”。从每篇文章中提取研究特征、修复体的生存率。不设语言限制。使用随机效应模型计算生存率和患病率估计值。

结果

电子检索产生5009条记录,最终筛选出14篇文献进行全文分析。其中包括2项随机对照试验、7项前瞻性研究和5项回顾性研究,方法学质量参差不齐。这包括52%的直接修复体和48%的间接修复体,使用了不同的材料和随访期。直接复合树脂修复体与间接手工制作的复合树脂修复体的生存率无显著差异(n = 2;OR,1.79 [95%CI,0.64 - 5.05];p = 0.270)。对于前瞻性文章,修复体生存的合并患病率估计值为:直接修复体(n = 3;99% [95%CI,0.97 - 1.00])和间接修复体(n = 5;100% [95%CI,(此处原文有误,应为0.98-1.00)0.99 - 1.00])。二硅酸锂的失败率最低,为1.8%。

结论

尽管间接手工制作的修复体和直接复合树脂的生存率估计值无显著差异,但对于牙列磨损的患者,间接修复体,尤其是二硅酸锂陶瓷制作的修复体,与直接树脂修复体相比,可能具有更高的生存率。

临床意义

尽管证据有限,但间接陶瓷修复体似乎非常适合长期治疗磨损牙列,而直接复合树脂修复体更适合作为中期解决方案。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验