{"title":"数字或虚拟咬合登记与传统技术相比的疗效评估--系统性综述","authors":"Priyanjali Paul, Tridib Nath Banerjee, Saurav Banerjee, Anasua Debnath","doi":"10.1016/j.jobcr.2024.10.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bite registration procedures have been transformed by the digital revolution in dentistry, thus it is now necessary to compare the accuracy of digital or virtual techniques to conventional ones.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To assess the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration systems in comparison to conventional methods to clarify any potential advantages or disadvantages.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>A thorough search in numerous databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, was carried out in accordance with PRISMA criteria. The review focused on the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration and covered a variety of study formats, including randomized controlled trials, clinical studies, and in-vitro investigations. For each of the included 7 studies, a thorough assessment of bias was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. As there would be expected variability in study designs, data synthesis required both a narrative explanation of the results and a qualitative synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This systematic review compared 7 studies on traditional bite registration methods versus digital/virtual techniques. Digital techniques highlighted improved efficiency and innovation with increased speed, accuracy, and integration advantages. Evaluations performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool showed little bias in cross-sectional studies. Nevertheless, in vitro studies have identified biases in participant selection and result reporting, indicating a need for better study rigor and reporting standards. A study received a noteworthy 8 out of 9 score on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, indicating strong methodology with careful sample selection, solid comparability, and comprehensive outcome evaluation, enhancing its credibility in assessing bite registration techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The benefits of digital/virtual bite registration methods over traditional ones are demonstrated in this systematic review, which also shows how these methods improve speed, accuracy, and integration. Although some studies have shown biases, overall results support the validity and efficiency of digital techniques in improving dental practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16609,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","volume":"14 6","pages":"Pages 785-792"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of efficacy of digital or virtual bite registration over conventional techniques- A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Priyanjali Paul, Tridib Nath Banerjee, Saurav Banerjee, Anasua Debnath\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jobcr.2024.10.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bite registration procedures have been transformed by the digital revolution in dentistry, thus it is now necessary to compare the accuracy of digital or virtual techniques to conventional ones.</div></div><div><h3>Aim</h3><div>To assess the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration systems in comparison to conventional methods to clarify any potential advantages or disadvantages.</div></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><div>A thorough search in numerous databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, was carried out in accordance with PRISMA criteria. The review focused on the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration and covered a variety of study formats, including randomized controlled trials, clinical studies, and in-vitro investigations. For each of the included 7 studies, a thorough assessment of bias was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. As there would be expected variability in study designs, data synthesis required both a narrative explanation of the results and a qualitative synthesis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>This systematic review compared 7 studies on traditional bite registration methods versus digital/virtual techniques. Digital techniques highlighted improved efficiency and innovation with increased speed, accuracy, and integration advantages. Evaluations performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool showed little bias in cross-sectional studies. Nevertheless, in vitro studies have identified biases in participant selection and result reporting, indicating a need for better study rigor and reporting standards. A study received a noteworthy 8 out of 9 score on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, indicating strong methodology with careful sample selection, solid comparability, and comprehensive outcome evaluation, enhancing its credibility in assessing bite registration techniques.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The benefits of digital/virtual bite registration methods over traditional ones are demonstrated in this systematic review, which also shows how these methods improve speed, accuracy, and integration. Although some studies have shown biases, overall results support the validity and efficiency of digital techniques in improving dental practice.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 785-792\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426824001544\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426824001544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景牙科数字化革命改变了咬合登记程序,因此现在有必要比较数字化或虚拟技术与传统技术的准确性。目的评估数字化或虚拟咬合登记系统与传统方法相比的准确性,以明确任何潜在的优势或劣势。方法根据 PRISMA 标准在众多数据库(包括 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、Scopus 和 Web of Science)中进行了全面搜索。综述的重点是数字化或虚拟咬合登记的准确性,涵盖了各种研究形式,包括随机对照试验、临床研究和体外调查。对于每项纳入的 7 项研究,我们都使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具进行了全面的偏倚评估。由于研究设计存在预期差异,因此数据综合既需要对结果进行叙述性解释,也需要进行定性综合。数字技术具有速度快、准确性高和集成度高等优点,突出了效率和创新性。使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和 ROBINS-I 工具进行的评估显示,横断面研究中的偏差很小。然而,体外研究发现,在参与者选择和结果报告方面存在偏差,这表明有必要提高研究的严谨性和报告标准。一项研究在纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表中获得了值得一提的 8 分(满分 9 分),表明该研究方法严谨,样本选择仔细,可比性强,结果评估全面,提高了其在评估咬合登记技术方面的可信度。虽然有些研究存在偏差,但总体结果支持数字化技术在改善牙科实践中的有效性和效率。
Evaluation of efficacy of digital or virtual bite registration over conventional techniques- A systematic review
Background
Bite registration procedures have been transformed by the digital revolution in dentistry, thus it is now necessary to compare the accuracy of digital or virtual techniques to conventional ones.
Aim
To assess the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration systems in comparison to conventional methods to clarify any potential advantages or disadvantages.
Methodology
A thorough search in numerous databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, was carried out in accordance with PRISMA criteria. The review focused on the accuracy of digital or virtual bite registration and covered a variety of study formats, including randomized controlled trials, clinical studies, and in-vitro investigations. For each of the included 7 studies, a thorough assessment of bias was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. As there would be expected variability in study designs, data synthesis required both a narrative explanation of the results and a qualitative synthesis.
Results
This systematic review compared 7 studies on traditional bite registration methods versus digital/virtual techniques. Digital techniques highlighted improved efficiency and innovation with increased speed, accuracy, and integration advantages. Evaluations performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and ROBINS-I tool showed little bias in cross-sectional studies. Nevertheless, in vitro studies have identified biases in participant selection and result reporting, indicating a need for better study rigor and reporting standards. A study received a noteworthy 8 out of 9 score on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, indicating strong methodology with careful sample selection, solid comparability, and comprehensive outcome evaluation, enhancing its credibility in assessing bite registration techniques.
Conclusion
The benefits of digital/virtual bite registration methods over traditional ones are demonstrated in this systematic review, which also shows how these methods improve speed, accuracy, and integration. Although some studies have shown biases, overall results support the validity and efficiency of digital techniques in improving dental practice.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research (JOBCR)is the official journal of the Craniofacial Research Foundation (CRF). The journal aims to provide a common platform for both clinical and translational research and to promote interdisciplinary sciences in craniofacial region. JOBCR publishes content that includes diseases, injuries and defects in the head, neck, face, jaws and the hard and soft tissues of the mouth and jaws and face region; diagnosis and medical management of diseases specific to the orofacial tissues and of oral manifestations of systemic diseases; studies on identifying populations at risk of oral disease or in need of specific care, and comparing regional, environmental, social, and access similarities and differences in dental care between populations; diseases of the mouth and related structures like salivary glands, temporomandibular joints, facial muscles and perioral skin; biomedical engineering, tissue engineering and stem cells. The journal publishes reviews, commentaries, peer-reviewed original research articles, short communication, and case reports.