化学机械去腐技术治疗龋病的Meta分析
|
摘要
目的评价化学机械去腐技术治疗龋病的应用价值与效果。方法首先使用计算机对数字化期刊全文数据库、中国期刊全文数据库以及中国生物医学文献数据库等进行文献检索;然后采用手检法,对计算机所检索出文章所附的参考文献和会议论文汇编进行补充。本研究主要分析比较了化学机械去龋技术与传统机械去腐技术治疗龋病的效果,通过与传统机械去龋效果的比较印证新型化学机械去龋的应用前景。并对纳入研究的文献采用Cochrane系统评价方法进行评价,并用RevMan5.2进行Meta分析。化学机械去腐评价指标包括了术后并发症、去腐时间、去腐效果以及疼痛程度、1年成功率等。结果化学机械去腐与常规去腐相比,去腐效果[OR=1.12,95%CI:(0.71,1.78),P=0.063]、继发龋发生率[OR=0.64,95%CI:(0.36,1.15),P=0.130]比较差异无统计学意义;去腐时间[OR=2.77,95%CI:(2.35,3.18),P<0.05]、疼痛发生率[OR=0.130,95%CI:(0.10,0.16),P<0.05]、牙髓并发症的发生率[OR=0.24,95%CI:(0.08,0.72),P<0.05]、牙科焦虑症的发生率[OR=0.19,95%CI:(0.12,0.28),P<0.05]、1年成功率[OR=1.81,95%CI:(1.08,3.04),P<0.05]比较差异有统计学意义。结论化学机械去腐与常规机械去腐相比,治疗效果差异无统计学意义,治疗时间有所增加,但可以降低疼痛、牙髓并发症以及牙科焦虑症的发生率,并且增加1年成功率。
Objective To evaluate the application value and effect of chemical-mechanical detoxification in the treatment of rickets. Methods Firstly, the computer was used to search the digital journal full-text database, the Chinese journal full-text database and the Chinese biomedical literature database. Then the manual examination method was used to supplement the reference documents and conference papers attached to the computer. In this paper, the effect of chemical-mechanical decontamination technology in the treatment of rickets is mainly analyzed. The paper confirmed the application prospect of new chemical-machinery decontamination. The literature included in the study was evaluated using the Cochrane systematic review method and Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. The evaluation indexes of chemical-mechanical decontamination include postoperative complications, time of decontamination, decontamination effect and degree of pain, and 1-year success rate. Results When compared chemical-mechanical decontamination and the conventional decontamination, the decontamination effect [OR=1.12, 95% CI:(0.71, 1.78), P=0.063], incidence of secondary sputum [OR=0.64, 95% CI:(0.36, 1.15), P=0.13], P>0.05, the difference was no statistical significance. The decontamination time [OR=2.77, 95% CI:(2.35, 3.18), P<0.05], incidence of pain [OR=0.13, 95% CI:(0.10, 0.16), P<0.05], incidence of pulp complications [OR=0.24 95% CI:(0.08, 0.72), P<0.05], the incidence of dental anxiety [OR=0.19, 95% CI:(0.12, 0.28), P<0.05], 1-year success rate [OR=1.81, 95% CI:(1.08, 3.04), P<0.05], the difference were all statistically significant. Conclusion As compared with conventional mechanical decontamination, chemical-mechanical decontamination has no significant difference in the treatment effect. Through the treatment time is increased, but it can reduce the incidence of pain, pulp complications and dental anxiety, and increase the success rate of one year.
Objective To evaluate the application value and effect of chemical-mechanical detoxification in the treatment of rickets. Methods Firstly, the computer was used to search the digital journal full-text database, the Chinese journal full-text database and the Chinese biomedical literature database. Then the manual examination method was used to supplement the reference documents and conference papers attached to the computer. In this paper, the effect of chemical-mechanical decontamination technology in the treatment of rickets is mainly analyzed. The paper confirmed the application prospect of new chemical-machinery decontamination. The literature included in the study was evaluated using the Cochrane systematic review method and Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2. The evaluation indexes of chemical-mechanical decontamination include postoperative complications, time of decontamination, decontamination effect and degree of pain, and 1-year success rate. Results When compared chemical-mechanical decontamination and the conventional decontamination, the decontamination effect [OR=1.12, 95% CI:(0.71, 1.78), P=0.063], incidence of secondary sputum [OR=0.64, 95% CI:(0.36, 1.15), P=0.13], P>0.05, the difference was no statistical significance. The decontamination time [OR=2.77, 95% CI:(2.35, 3.18), P<0.05], incidence of pain [OR=0.13, 95% CI:(0.10, 0.16), P<0.05], incidence of pulp complications [OR=0.24 95% CI:(0.08, 0.72), P<0.05], the incidence of dental anxiety [OR=0.19, 95% CI:(0.12, 0.28), P<0.05], 1-year success rate [OR=1.81, 95% CI:(1.08, 3.04), P<0.05], the difference were all statistically significant. Conclusion As compared with conventional mechanical decontamination, chemical-mechanical decontamination has no significant difference in the treatment effect. Through the treatment time is increased, but it can reduce the incidence of pain, pulp complications and dental anxiety, and increase the success rate of one year.
引文
[1] 周学东,凌均棨,梁景平,等.龋病临床治疗难度因素及处理[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2017,35(1):1-7.
[2] 何沐.微创去腐技术治疗龋齿临床效果初评[J].中国伤残医学,2015,23(21):67-68.
[3] KAKABOURA A,MASOURAS C,STAIKOU O,et al.A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method[J].Quintessence Int,2003,34(4):269-271.
[4] LOZANO-CHOURIO M A,ZAMBRANO O,GONZáLEZ H,et al.Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) [J].Int J Paediatr Dent,2006,16(3):161-167.
[5] FURE S,LINGSTR?M P,BIRKHED D.Evaluation of Carisolv for the chemo-mechanical removal of primary root caries in vivo[J].Caries Res,2000,34(3):275-280.
[6] PERIC T,MARKOVIC D,PETROVIC B.Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents[J].Acta Odontol Scand,2009,67(5):277-283.
[7] 韦少锋.微创去腐技术治疗龋齿的临床观察[J].中国临床医学,2010,17(3):434-435.
[8] 赵芳.伢典在中深龋治疗中的临床疗效评价[J].基层医学论坛,2013,17(17):2197-2199.
[9] 吕洁.龋齿行经微创去腐技术治疗疗效观察[J].牡丹江医学院学报,2014,35(3):87-88.
[10] 王怡丹,刘怡.伢典微创化学机械去龋法在儿童龋齿治疗中的临床应用[J].贵州医药,2008,32(9):789-790.
[11] 李萍,李慧,刘志刚.微创去腐技术治疗患者龋齿的临床效果评价[J].中国民康医学,2015,27(15):16-17.
[12] 黄桂港,赵豪.化学机械去腐技术治疗龋病的疗效评价[J].中国农村卫生事业管理,2013,33(11):1335-1336.
[13] 陈伟,黄舜敏,杨华瑾.微创去腐技术对龋齿的治疗效果评定及分析[J].临床医学工程,2017,24(11):1549-1550.
[14] 李丽洁,鄂丽华,郝玉娥.伢典法和车针法治疗乳牙龋齿的临床疗效对比研究[J].转化医学电子杂志,2015,2(10):69-70.
[15] 赵迪,汪林,霍丽.Carisolv(伢典)微创去龋法在康复疗养患者治疗中的应用[J].中华老年口腔医学杂志,2013,11(5):265-267.
[16] 汤根兄,李静,吴国英,等.Carisolv去腐对155例牙科畏惧症患儿影响的观察[J].口腔医学,2011,31(9):552-554.
[17] 汪骏.微创去腐技术治疗龋齿45例临床观察[J].中国民族民间医药,2014,23(16):100.
[18] 吕洁.龋齿行经微创去腐技术治疗疗效观察[J].牡丹江医学院学报,2014,35(3):87-88.
[2] 何沐.微创去腐技术治疗龋齿临床效果初评[J].中国伤残医学,2015,23(21):67-68.
[3] KAKABOURA A,MASOURAS C,STAIKOU O,et al.A comparative clinical study on the Carisolv caries removal method[J].Quintessence Int,2003,34(4):269-271.
[4] LOZANO-CHOURIO M A,ZAMBRANO O,GONZáLEZ H,et al.Clinical randomized controlled trial of chemomechanical caries removal (Carisolv) [J].Int J Paediatr Dent,2006,16(3):161-167.
[5] FURE S,LINGSTR?M P,BIRKHED D.Evaluation of Carisolv for the chemo-mechanical removal of primary root caries in vivo[J].Caries Res,2000,34(3):275-280.
[6] PERIC T,MARKOVIC D,PETROVIC B.Clinical evaluation of a chemomechanical method for caries removal in children and adolescents[J].Acta Odontol Scand,2009,67(5):277-283.
[7] 韦少锋.微创去腐技术治疗龋齿的临床观察[J].中国临床医学,2010,17(3):434-435.
[8] 赵芳.伢典在中深龋治疗中的临床疗效评价[J].基层医学论坛,2013,17(17):2197-2199.
[9] 吕洁.龋齿行经微创去腐技术治疗疗效观察[J].牡丹江医学院学报,2014,35(3):87-88.
[10] 王怡丹,刘怡.伢典微创化学机械去龋法在儿童龋齿治疗中的临床应用[J].贵州医药,2008,32(9):789-790.
[11] 李萍,李慧,刘志刚.微创去腐技术治疗患者龋齿的临床效果评价[J].中国民康医学,2015,27(15):16-17.
[12] 黄桂港,赵豪.化学机械去腐技术治疗龋病的疗效评价[J].中国农村卫生事业管理,2013,33(11):1335-1336.
[13] 陈伟,黄舜敏,杨华瑾.微创去腐技术对龋齿的治疗效果评定及分析[J].临床医学工程,2017,24(11):1549-1550.
[14] 李丽洁,鄂丽华,郝玉娥.伢典法和车针法治疗乳牙龋齿的临床疗效对比研究[J].转化医学电子杂志,2015,2(10):69-70.
[15] 赵迪,汪林,霍丽.Carisolv(伢典)微创去龋法在康复疗养患者治疗中的应用[J].中华老年口腔医学杂志,2013,11(5):265-267.
[16] 汤根兄,李静,吴国英,等.Carisolv去腐对155例牙科畏惧症患儿影响的观察[J].口腔医学,2011,31(9):552-554.
[17] 汪骏.微创去腐技术治疗龋齿45例临床观察[J].中国民族民间医药,2014,23(16):100.
[18] 吕洁.龋齿行经微创去腐技术治疗疗效观察[J].牡丹江医学院学报,2014,35(3):87-88.