Suppr超能文献

对近期一项荟萃分析中用于比较含氟牙膏和单氟磷酸钠牙膏防龋效果的10项关键龋病临床研究的批判性综述。

A critical review of the 10 pivotal caries clinical studies used in a recent meta-analysis comparing the anticaries efficacy of sodium fluoride and sodium monofluorophosphate dentifrices.

作者信息

Volpe A R, Petrone M E, Davies R M

机构信息

Clinical Dental Legal Liaison, Colgate-Palmolive Technology Center, Piscataway, New Jersey, United States.

出版信息

Am J Dent. 1993 Sep;6 Spec No:S13-42.

PMID:7488352
Abstract

The 10 pivotal caries clinical studies employed in a recent meta-analysis to compare the anticaries efficacy of sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium monofluorophosphate (MFP) dentifrices were subjected to a critical review. When reporting the meta-analysis, the author (Johnson) considered these 10 pivotal caries clinical studies as "head-to-head" comparisons of NaF and MFP dentifrices. For the most part, it is difficult to find any common denominator among these 10 caries clinical studies since there were so many diverse factors associated with them. The 10 pivotal studies were conducted over a 20-year period of time in many different geographic areas of the world, using different protocols and study designs, different clinical examiners and caries assessment criteria, as well as evaluating commercially outdated or specially formulated dentifrices. Any attempt to integrate the results from these 10 studies is further complicated by the diversity of statistical methodology used to evaluate the results obtained from the studies. Also, in two of the 10 studies, the comparison of the fluoride dentifrices was obscured by the fact that the participating children used a fluoride mouthrinse during the course of the study. In any case, when all relevant dentifrice comparisons are made, the results of a critical review of the 10 pivotal ("head-to-head") caries clinical studies indicate the following: (1) In three of the studies (Gerdin/Zacherl/Forsman), depending upon how the data is viewed, it can either be shown that NaF dentifrices are favored over MFP dentifrices or that MFP dentifrices are favored over NaF dentifrices. (2) In one of the studies (Edward & Torell), the results are published only in abstract form and a full report of the study is not available. (3) In one of the studies (Koch, Petersson, Kling & Kling) it is reported that MFP dentifrices are favored over NaF dentifrices. (4) In two of the studies (Edlund & Koch, Koch et al) it is reported that NaF dentifrices are favored over MFP dentifrices. However, in both of these studies, there were serious imbalances in baseline caries status favoring the NaF dentifrice groups over the MFP dentifrice groups. In other words, the children using the MFP dentifrices were more prone to caries formation during the course of these studies than the children using the NaF dentifrices. Further, in these two studies there is a serious question regarding the soluble fluoride level of the commercially available MFP dentifrice that was used.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

摘要

最近一项荟萃分析中用于比较氟化钠(NaF)牙膏和单氟磷酸钠(MFP)牙膏防龋效果的10项关键龋病临床研究受到了严格审查。在报告该荟萃分析时,作者(约翰逊)将这10项关键龋病临床研究视为NaF牙膏和MFP牙膏的“直接”比较。在很大程度上,很难在这10项龋病临床研究中找到任何共同特征,因为与它们相关的因素非常多样。这10项关键研究在20年的时间里于世界许多不同地理区域进行,采用了不同的方案和研究设计、不同的临床检查人员和龋病评估标准,还评估了商业上已过时或特别配制的牙膏。用于评估这些研究结果的统计方法的多样性,使整合这10项研究结果的任何尝试都更加复杂。此外,在这10项研究中的两项中,由于参与研究的儿童在研究过程中使用了含氟漱口水,使得氟化物牙膏的比较变得模糊不清。无论如何,当对所有相关牙膏比较进行审查时,对这10项关键(“直接”)龋病临床研究的严格审查结果表明:(1)在其中三项研究(格尔丁/扎赫尔/福斯曼)中,根据数据的解读方式,要么可以表明NaF牙膏比MFP牙膏更受青睐,要么可以表明MFP牙膏比NaF牙膏更受青睐。(2)在其中一项研究(爱德华和托雷尔)中,结果仅以摘要形式发表,无法获得该研究的完整报告。(3)在其中一项研究(科赫、彼得松、克林和克林)中,报告称MFP牙膏比NaF牙膏更受青睐。(4)在两项研究(埃德伦德和科赫、科赫等人)中,报告称NaF牙膏比MFP牙膏更受青睐。然而,在这两项研究中,基线龋病状况存在严重失衡,NaF牙膏组比MFP牙膏组更具优势。换句话说,在这些研究过程中,使用MFP牙膏的儿童比使用NaF牙膏的儿童更容易患龋。此外,在这两项研究中,所使用的市售MFP牙膏的可溶性氟水平存在严重问题。(摘要截断于400字)

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