{"title":"高粘度玻璃离子基和块状填充树脂基修复体在具有咬合或近端蛀牙的恒牙中的临床表现：系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Xinyue Huang, Ruonan Zhang, Xueqian Yu, Wenting Sun, Lu Zhang, Fang Hua, Zhi Chen","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-06127-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To summarize and analyze existing evidence regarding the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer-based materials (HVGIs) and bulk-fill resin-based composites (BFs) in patients with occlusal or proximal cavities in permanent teeth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) (last update: April 19th, 2024). Randomized control trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective comparative cohorts were included. Manual searching was performed for twelve relevant dental journals. The primary outcome was the retention of the restoration. The evaluation of included studies, data extraction, and study selection were completed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted, and the overall quality of the evidence was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs and one retrospective study were included, of which one had a high risk of bias and the others had an unclear risk of bias. In meta-analyses, HVGIs were associated with a less favorable outcome on retention both at one (p = 0.013) and two-year follow-ups (p < 0.0001) compared with BFs. The quality of the evidence was very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Very low certainty evidence suggested that BFs presented favorable clinical performance on retention and marginal adaptation in Class I and II restorations in permanent teeth comparing HVGIs. Nevertheless, HVGIs with a resin-based coating showed acceptable clinical behavior.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>For patients with a high caries risk, HVGIs serve as a direct restorative alternative for the posterior permanent teeth; however, they should be carefully considered as bulk-fill composite resin alternatives for long-term restoration.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42024535999).</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"29 1","pages":"50"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer-based and bulk-fill resin-based restorations in permanent teeth with occlusal or proximal cavities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Xinyue Huang, Ruonan Zhang, Xueqian Yu, Wenting Sun, Lu Zhang, Fang Hua, Zhi Chen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00784-024-06127-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To summarize and analyze existing evidence regarding the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer-based materials (HVGIs) and bulk-fill resin-based composites (BFs) in patients with occlusal or proximal cavities in permanent teeth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) (last update: April 19th, 2024). Randomized control trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective comparative cohorts were included. Manual searching was performed for twelve relevant dental journals. The primary outcome was the retention of the restoration. The evaluation of included studies, data extraction, and study selection were completed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted, and the overall quality of the evidence was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five RCTs and one retrospective study were included, of which one had a high risk of bias and the others had an unclear risk of bias. In meta-analyses, HVGIs were associated with a less favorable outcome on retention both at one (p = 0.013) and two-year follow-ups (p < 0.0001) compared with BFs. The quality of the evidence was very low.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Very low certainty evidence suggested that BFs presented favorable clinical performance on retention and marginal adaptation in Class I and II restorations in permanent teeth comparing HVGIs. Nevertheless, HVGIs with a resin-based coating showed acceptable clinical behavior.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>For patients with a high caries risk, HVGIs serve as a direct restorative alternative for the posterior permanent teeth; however, they should be carefully considered as bulk-fill composite resin alternatives for long-term restoration.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>PROSPERO (CRD42024535999).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"50\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Oral Investigations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06127-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06127-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：总结和分析高粘度玻璃离子基材料（HVGIs）和块状填充树脂基复合材料（BFs）在恒牙合牙槽或近端牙槽中的临床表现。材料和方法：使用PubMed、Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials （Central）、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science （WOS）进行文献检索（最后更新：2024年4月19日）。包括随机对照试验（rct）、回顾性和前瞻性比较队列。人工检索了12种相关的牙科期刊。主要结果是修复的保留。纳入研究的评估、数据提取和研究选择由两名独立审稿人完成。采用Cochrane风险偏倚工具（RoB 2）和Newcastle-Ottawa量表评估纳入研究的质量。进行了定量荟萃分析，并评估了证据的总体质量。结果：纳入5项随机对照试验和1项回顾性研究，其中1项偏倚风险高，其余偏倚风险不明确。在荟萃分析中，hvgi在1年（p = 0.013）和2年随访时的固位结果均较差(p)。结论：非常低确定性的证据表明，与hvgi相比，BFs在I类和II类恒牙修复体中的固位和边缘适应方面具有良好的临床表现。然而，具有树脂基涂层的hvgi表现出可接受的临床行为。临床意义：对于龋齿风险高的患者，hvgi可作为后恒牙的直接修复选择；然而，它们应该仔细考虑作为长期修复的大块填充复合树脂替代品。报名：普洛斯彼罗（CRD42024535999）。
The clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer-based and bulk-fill resin-based restorations in permanent teeth with occlusal or proximal cavities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objectives: To summarize and analyze existing evidence regarding the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer-based materials (HVGIs) and bulk-fill resin-based composites (BFs) in patients with occlusal or proximal cavities in permanent teeth.
Materials and methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) (last update: April 19th, 2024). Randomized control trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective comparative cohorts were included. Manual searching was performed for twelve relevant dental journals. The primary outcome was the retention of the restoration. The evaluation of included studies, data extraction, and study selection were completed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted, and the overall quality of the evidence was evaluated.
Results: Five RCTs and one retrospective study were included, of which one had a high risk of bias and the others had an unclear risk of bias. In meta-analyses, HVGIs were associated with a less favorable outcome on retention both at one (p = 0.013) and two-year follow-ups (p < 0.0001) compared with BFs. The quality of the evidence was very low.
Conclusions: Very low certainty evidence suggested that BFs presented favorable clinical performance on retention and marginal adaptation in Class I and II restorations in permanent teeth comparing HVGIs. Nevertheless, HVGIs with a resin-based coating showed acceptable clinical behavior.
Clinical relevance: For patients with a high caries risk, HVGIs serve as a direct restorative alternative for the posterior permanent teeth; however, they should be carefully considered as bulk-fill composite resin alternatives for long-term restoration.
期刊介绍：
The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
