是否有证据表明在宫颈良性病变中,三步蚀刻冲洗黏合剂比一步自蚀刻黏合剂有更好的保留率?系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Fabiana Dias Simas Dreweck, Driellen Zarpellon, Letícia Maíra Wambier, Alessandro D Loguercio, Alessandra Reis, Osnara Maria Mongruel Gomes
{"title":"是否有证据表明在宫颈良性病变中,三步蚀刻冲洗黏合剂比一步自蚀刻黏合剂有更好的保留率?系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Fabiana Dias Simas Dreweck,&nbsp;Driellen Zarpellon,&nbsp;Letícia Maíra Wambier,&nbsp;Alessandro D Loguercio,&nbsp;Alessandra Reis,&nbsp;Osnara Maria Mongruel Gomes","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b1367811","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rates of 3-step etch-and-rinse (3ER) adhesives with 1-step self-etch (1SE) adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). The secondary outcomes were marginal integrity and marginal discoloration.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared 1SE with 3ER in NCCLs were included. Controlled vocabulary and keywords were combined in the search strategy for PubMed/Medline, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB) was applied to eligible studies. Meta-analyses were conducted for retention rate and secondary outcomes at different follow-up times, using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, 18 studies remained. Of these, 15 studies were used for meta-analysis. Fourteen out of these 15 were judged at \"unclear\" risk and 1 at \"low\" risk of bias. No significant differences between groups were observed in the different follow-up periods for retention rates 12 to 24 months (p = 0.66), 24 to 36 months (p = 0.21) and 60 months (p = 0.96). A significant difference in marginal integrity was found at 12 to 24 months (p = 0.04) and in marginal discoloration at 12 to 24 months (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no evidence that 3-step ER adhesives have better retention rates than 1-step SE adhesives in NCCLs.</p>","PeriodicalId":55604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","volume":"23 3","pages":"187-200"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is There Evidence that Three-step Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives Have Better Retention Rates than One-step Self-etch Adhesives in Noncarious Cervical Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Fabiana Dias Simas Dreweck,&nbsp;Driellen Zarpellon,&nbsp;Letícia Maíra Wambier,&nbsp;Alessandro D Loguercio,&nbsp;Alessandra Reis,&nbsp;Osnara Maria Mongruel Gomes\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b1367811\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rates of 3-step etch-and-rinse (3ER) adhesives with 1-step self-etch (1SE) adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). The secondary outcomes were marginal integrity and marginal discoloration.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared 1SE with 3ER in NCCLs were included. Controlled vocabulary and keywords were combined in the search strategy for PubMed/Medline, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB) was applied to eligible studies. Meta-analyses were conducted for retention rate and secondary outcomes at different follow-up times, using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, 18 studies remained. Of these, 15 studies were used for meta-analysis. Fourteen out of these 15 were judged at \\\"unclear\\\" risk and 1 at \\\"low\\\" risk of bias. No significant differences between groups were observed in the different follow-up periods for retention rates 12 to 24 months (p = 0.66), 24 to 36 months (p = 0.21) and 60 months (p = 0.96). A significant difference in marginal integrity was found at 12 to 24 months (p = 0.04) and in marginal discoloration at 12 to 24 months (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no evidence that 3-step ER adhesives have better retention rates than 1-step SE adhesives in NCCLs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"23 3\",\"pages\":\"187-200\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1367811\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1367811","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

目的:进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较3步蚀刻冲洗(3ER)粘接剂与1步自蚀刻(1SE)粘接剂在宫颈非龋齿病变(ncls)中的保留率。次要结果为边缘完整性和边缘变色。材料和方法:仅纳入比较1SE与3ER在ncls中的随机临床试验(rct)。在PubMed/Medline、LILACS、BBO、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、灰色文献和IADR摘要(1990-2018)的检索策略中结合控制词汇和关键词。Cochrane偏倚风险工具(RoB)应用于符合条件的研究。采用随机效应模型对不同随访时间的留置率和次要结局进行meta分析。采用Cochran Q检验和I2统计量评估异质性。GRADE方法用于评估证据的质量。结果:在去除重复、标题和摘要筛选后,仍有18项研究。其中,15项研究被用于荟萃分析。这15个中有14个被判定为“不清楚”风险,1个被判定为“低”风险。在12 ~ 24个月(p = 0.66)、24 ~ 36个月(p = 0.21)和60个月(p = 0.96)的随访期间,各组之间的保留率无显著差异。12至24个月时边缘完整性(p = 0.04)和12至24个月时边缘变色(p = 0.003)差异显著。结论:没有证据表明三步ER粘接剂比一步SE粘接剂在NCCLs中的固位率更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is There Evidence that Three-step Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives Have Better Retention Rates than One-step Self-etch Adhesives in Noncarious Cervical Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rates of 3-step etch-and-rinse (3ER) adhesives with 1-step self-etch (1SE) adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). The secondary outcomes were marginal integrity and marginal discoloration.

Materials and methods: Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared 1SE with 3ER in NCCLs were included. Controlled vocabulary and keywords were combined in the search strategy for PubMed/Medline, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018). The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB) was applied to eligible studies. Meta-analyses were conducted for retention rate and secondary outcomes at different follow-up times, using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

Results: After the removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, 18 studies remained. Of these, 15 studies were used for meta-analysis. Fourteen out of these 15 were judged at "unclear" risk and 1 at "low" risk of bias. No significant differences between groups were observed in the different follow-up periods for retention rates 12 to 24 months (p = 0.66), 24 to 36 months (p = 0.21) and 60 months (p = 0.96). A significant difference in marginal integrity was found at 12 to 24 months (p = 0.04) and in marginal discoloration at 12 to 24 months (p = 0.003).

Conclusion: There is no evidence that 3-step ER adhesives have better retention rates than 1-step SE adhesives in NCCLs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: New materials and applications for adhesion are profoundly changing the way dentistry is delivered. Bonding techniques, which have long been restricted to the tooth hard tissues, enamel, and dentin, have obvious applications in operative and preventive dentistry, as well as in esthetic and pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and orthodontics. The current development of adhesive techniques for soft tissues and slow-releasing agents will expand applications to include periodontics and oral surgery. Scientifically sound, peer-reviewed articles explore the latest innovations in these emerging fields.
×
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