
浏览全部资源
扫码关注微信
1. 重庆市第三人民医院口腔科
2. 重庆医科大学附属口腔医院正畸科重庆市口腔疾病与生物医学研究中心
纸质出版日期:2017,
扫 描 看 全 文
卿尚兰, 刘鑫, 宋锦璘. 三种常见保持器对牙周健康影响的Meta分析[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2017,42(9):1099-1105.
Qing Shanglan, Liu Xin, Song Jinlin. Effects of three common retainers on periodontal health:a Meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Chongqing Medical University, 2017,42(9):1099-1105.
卿尚兰, 刘鑫, 宋锦璘. 三种常见保持器对牙周健康影响的Meta分析[J]. 重庆医科大学学报, 2017,42(9):1099-1105. DOI: 10.13406/j.cnki.cyxb.000867.
Qing Shanglan, Liu Xin, Song Jinlin. Effects of three common retainers on periodontal health:a Meta-analysis[J]. Journal of Chongqing Medical University, 2017,42(9):1099-1105. DOI: 10.13406/j.cnki.cyxb.000867.
目的:通过meta分析
研究三种常用保持器:Halwey’s保持器、压膜保持器以及舌侧固定保持器对牙周健康的影响。方法:计算机检索Cochrane Library、Embase、Pub Med、中国生物文献数据库(CBM)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)以及万方数字化期刊全文数据库
并手工检索其他文献来源文献。由3名工作者进行文献质量评价及资料提取
采用Rev Man 5.2进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入7篇文献
总共357个研究对象。其中3篇比较了Hawley’s保持器与压膜保持器
3篇比较了Hawley’s保持器与舌侧固定保持器
另外1篇对三种保持器均进行了比较。通过对3种保持器佩戴的菌斑指数(plaque index
PLI)和牙龈指数(gingival index
GI)进行Meta分析
结果显示舌侧固定保持器与Hawley’s保持器在第1个月(PLI:MD=0.01
95%CI=-0.38
0
.40
P=0.970;GI:MD=0.07
95%CI=-0.36
0
.50
P=0.740)、第3个月(PLI:MD=0.23
95%CI=-0.14
0
.61
P=0.230;GI:MD=0.35
95%CI=-0.02
0
.72
P=0.060)、第6个月(PLI:MD=0.08
95%CI=-0.67
0
.84
P=0.840;GI:MD=0.16
95%CI=-0.60
0
.91
P=0.680)对牙周健康损害无统计学差异
合并效应量值均为正值
偏向舌侧保持器;压膜保持器在第1个月(PLI:MD=0.06
95%CI=-0.01
0
.13
P=0.090;GI:MD=0.52
95%CI=0.24
0
.80
P=0.000)和第3个月(PLI:MD=0.13
95%CI=0.09
0
.17
P=0.000;GI:MD=0.47
95%CI=0.21
0
.74
P=0.000)对牙周健康损害高于Hawley’s保持器
而后期(PLI:MD=0.99
95%CI=-0.05
2
.03
P=0.060;GI:MD=0.19
95%CI=-0.14
0
.52
P=0.260)两者无统计学差异。结论:舌侧固定保持器与Hawley’s保持器相比有对牙周损害更大的趋势;短期内压膜保持器对牙周健康的损害高于Hawley’s保持器。由于此次Meta分析纳入文章数量有限
且缺乏高质量文章
还仍需高质量、大样本的研究来证实该研究结果。
Objective:To systematically investigate the different influences of Hawley’s retainer
vacuum-formed retainer and fixed lingual retainer on periodontal conditions. Methods :The related articles in Cochrane Library
Embase
Pub Med
CBM
CNKI and Wangfang database were retrieved from inception to December 2014. All articles are about the influence of the three types of retainers on periodontium. Literature from other sources was searched by hand. Review Manager 5.2 was used to conduct Meta-analysis. Results:Seven articles accorded with the inclusion criteria. Of all these articles
three were about Hawley’s retainer and vacuum-formed retainer
three were about Hawley’s retainer and fixed lingual retainer
and one was about the different influences of three retainers on periodontal health. The results showed greater periodontal harm in vacuum-formed retainer group than in Hawley’s retainer group at the first month(PLI:MD =0.01
95% CI =-0.38 to 0.40
P =0.970;GI:MD =0.07
95% CI =-0.36 to 0.50
P =0.740) and the third month(PLI:MD=0.23
95% CI=-0.14 to 0.61
P=0.230;GI:MD=0.35
95% CI=-0.02 to 0.72
P=0.060)based on PLI and GI
while no significant difference was observed between two groups at the sixth month(PLI:MD=0.08
95% CI=-0.67 to 0.84
P=0.840;GI:MD =0.16
95% CI =-0.60 to 0.91
P =0.680). Besides
no significant difference was observed between fixed lingual retainer and Hawley ’s retainer at the first month(PLI:MD =0.06
95% CI =-0. 01 to 0.13
P=0.090;GI:MD=0.52
95% CI=0.24 to 0.80
P=0.000)
3 month(PLI:MD =0.13
95% CI=0.09 to 0.17
P=0.000;GI:MD=0.47
95% CI=0.21 to 0.74
P=0.000)
and 6 month(PLI:MD=0.99
95% CI=-0.05 to 2.03
P=0.060;GI:MD=0.19
95% CI=-0.14 to 0.52
P=0.260). Conclusion:Fixed lingual retainer has greater tendency to impair periodontal health than Hawley’s retainer
and vacuum-formed retainer poses greater impairment on periodontal health higher than Hawley’s retainer does in short term. Due to limited number of included studies and lack of high-quality studies
high-quality and large-scale samples are still needed to further verify our study results.
压膜保持器Hawley’s保持器舌侧固定保持器牙周健康Meta分析
vacuum-formed retainerHawley’s retainerfixed lingual retainerperiodontal healthMeta analysis
0
浏览量
177
下载量
2
CSCD
关联资源
相关文章
相关作者
相关机构
京公网安备11010802024621