EPA Consensus Project Paper: Failure Rates of Direct Versus Indirect Single-Tooth Restorations. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
P Kamposiora, I Papathanasiou, A B Barmak, K Chochlidakis
{"title":"EPA Consensus Project Paper: Failure Rates of Direct Versus Indirect Single-Tooth Restorations. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"P Kamposiora,&nbsp;I Papathanasiou,&nbsp;A B Barmak,&nbsp;K Chochlidakis","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2489Komposiora22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the failure rates of direct and indirect restorations for single-tooth restorations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted by using electronic databases and relevant references for clinical studies on direct and indirect dental restorations with a follow-up of at least 3 years. The risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 and the ROBINS- I tools. The I2 statistic was used for the assessment of heterogeneity. The authors reported summary estimates of annual failure rates of single-tooth restorations using a random-effects model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1415 screened articles, 52 (18 RCTs, 30 prospective, 4 retrospective) met the inclusion criteria. No articles with direct comparisons were identified. No significant difference was found in the annual failure rates of single teeth restored with either direct or indirect restorations, which were calculated as 1% using a random-effects model. High heterogeneity was found, ranging from 80% (P⟨0.01) for studies on direct restorations to 91% (P⟨0.01) for studies on indirect restorations. Most of the studies presented some risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Annual failure rates were similar for direct and indirect single-tooth restorations. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to draw more definitive conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2489Komposiora22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate and compare the failure rates of direct and indirect restorations for single-tooth restorations.

Methods: A literature search was conducted by using electronic databases and relevant references for clinical studies on direct and indirect dental restorations with a follow-up of at least 3 years. The risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 and the ROBINS- I tools. The I2 statistic was used for the assessment of heterogeneity. The authors reported summary estimates of annual failure rates of single-tooth restorations using a random-effects model.

Results: Of 1415 screened articles, 52 (18 RCTs, 30 prospective, 4 retrospective) met the inclusion criteria. No articles with direct comparisons were identified. No significant difference was found in the annual failure rates of single teeth restored with either direct or indirect restorations, which were calculated as 1% using a random-effects model. High heterogeneity was found, ranging from 80% (P⟨0.01) for studies on direct restorations to 91% (P⟨0.01) for studies on indirect restorations. Most of the studies presented some risk of bias.

Conclusions: Annual failure rates were similar for direct and indirect single-tooth restorations. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to draw more definitive conclusions.

EPA共识项目文件:直接与间接单牙修复的失败率。系统回顾和荟萃分析。
简介:本系统综述和荟萃分析的目的是评估和比较单牙直接修复和间接修复的失败率。方法:检索电子数据库及相关文献,对直接和间接牙体修复的临床研究进行文献检索,随访3年以上。使用ROB2和ROBINS- I工具评估偏倚风险。采用I2统计量评价异质性。作者报告了使用随机效应模型对单牙修复体年失败率的总结估计。结果:在筛选的1415篇文章中,52篇(18项随机对照试验,30项前瞻性,4项回顾性)符合纳入标准。未发现有直接比较的文章。采用随机效应模型计算,单牙直接修复和间接修复的年失败率均为1%,无显著差异。研究发现高度异质性,从直接修复研究的80% (P⟨0.01)到间接修复研究的91% (P⟨0.01)不等。大多数研究都存在一定的偏倚风险。结论:直接和间接单牙修复的年失败率相似。需要进一步的随机临床试验来得出更明确的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信