Anandapandian Ponsekar Abraham, Raza Fathima Banu, Ar Pradeep Kumar, Krishnamoorthy Sridevi, Ashok V, Anand Kumar V, P Vijayalakshmi
Dept. of Prosthodontics, Thai Moogambigai Dental College & Hospital, Dr MGR Educational & Research institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Ramachandra Dental College & Hospital, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2025 May-Jun;15(3):534-540. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.03.006. Epub 2025 Mar 14.
Dental restorations reduce occlusal force through a compensatory feedback mechanism. Thus, the type of restoration used during rehabilitation plays a vital role in altering occlusal force and contact area. The effects of factors such as the remaining dentition, occlusal contact area, and different types of rehabilitation on occlusal force need further exploration.
Evaluate the evidence of occlusal contact areas and various rehabilitation methods on influencing the occlusal force assessed using digital occlusal analyzers.Materials & Method: The protocol followed the Cochrane standards for systematic reviews and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024623551). The literature search used the Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study Design (PECOS) strategy. Database for searched until December 2024. Randomized controlled trial, observational studies including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that investigated the relationship of occlusal force with occlusal contact area, masticatory force, occlusal time, and number of remaining natural dentition using Dental Prescale or T scan.
545 articles were retrieved, and based on inclusion and exclusion criteria 13 observation studies were systematically filtered, 3 studies were included in the meta-analysis and all 13 studies were taken for qualitative data synthesis. Cochrane ROBINS 1 tool revealed a moderate risk of bias for the included studies. The fixed effect model showed moderate heterogeneity(I = 46 %) in the quantitatively assessed studies. The mean difference of occlusal force with rehabilitation was -10.02[95 % C.I(13.03, -7.03)] depicting prosthesis improved the occlusal force. However, qualitative analysis revealed that the occlusal force with prosthesis was lesser than the natural dentition quadrant.
Occlusal force was increased with rehabilitation compared to the edentulous site, however, the amount of force established in a complete set of natural dentitions was more than the rehabilitated site. The location of teeth in the arch, and the number of remaining dentitions played a role in occlusal force.
牙齿修复通过一种补偿性反馈机制降低咬合力。因此，修复过程中使用的修复类型在改变咬合力和接触面积方面起着至关重要的作用。诸如剩余牙列、咬合接触面积以及不同类型的修复等因素对咬合力的影响需要进一步探索。
评估咬合接触面积和各种修复方法对使用数字咬合分析仪评估咬合力的影响的证据。材料与方法：该方案遵循Cochrane系统评价标准，并在PROSPERO（CRD42024623551）中注册。文献检索采用人群、暴露、对照、结局、研究设计（PECOS）策略。检索数据库至2024年12月。随机对照试验、观察性研究，包括队列研究、病例对照研究和横断面研究，这些研究使用牙科预标度仪或T扫描研究咬合力与咬合接触面积、咀嚼力、咬合时间和剩余天然牙列数量之间的关系。
检索到545篇文章，根据纳入和排除标准，系统筛选出13项观察性研究，3项研究纳入荟萃分析，所有13项研究用于定性数据综合。Cochrane ROBINS 1工具显示纳入研究存在中度偏倚风险。固定效应模型显示在定量评估研究中存在中度异质性（I = 46%）。修复后咬合力的平均差异为-10.02[95%置信区间（13.03，-7.03）]，表明修复体改善了咬合力。然而，定性分析表明，修复体的咬合力小于天然牙列象限。
与无牙区相比，修复后咬合力增加，但完整天然牙列建立的咬合力大于修复部位。牙弓中牙齿的位置和剩余牙列数量对咬合力有影响。
