三种常见保持器对牙周健康影响的Meta分析

发布时间：2018-12-16 01:19

【摘要】：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)、相关期刊论文(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。
[Abstract]:Aim: to study the effects of three kinds of commonly used retainers: Halwey's retainer, mandrel holder and lingual fixator on periodontal health by meta analysis. Methods: Cochrane Library,Embase,Pub Med, Chinese biological literature database (CBM), Chinese periodical full-text database (CNKI) and Wanfang digital periodical full-text database were searched by computer and other literature sources were searched manually. Literature quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out by 3 workers, and Meta analysis was carried out by Rev Man 5.2. Results: a total of 357 subjects were included in 7 articles. Three of them compared the Hawley's holder with the pressure film holder, three compared the Hawley's holder with the tongue fixed holder, and the other one compared the three kinds of retainers. The plaque index (plaque index,PLI) and gingival index (gingival index,GI) of the three retainers were analyzed by Meta. The results showed that the lingual fixator and Hawley's retainer were in the first month (PLI:MD=0.01,95%CI=-0.38~0.40,). P0. 970; GI:MD=0.07,95%CI=-0.36~0.50,P=0.740, 3rd month (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, 6th month (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) had no significant difference in periodontal health damage, and the combined effects were positive and inclined to the lingual retainer. Pressure film holder at month 1 (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) and month 3 (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) was more harmful to periodontal health than Hawley's retainer, but later (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) there was no statistical difference between them. Conclusion: compared with Hawley's retainers, the lingual fixators have a greater tendency to damage periodontal health, and short-term internal pressure membrane retainers have more damage to periodontal health than Hawley's retainers. Due to the limited number of articles included in the Meta analysis and the lack of high-quality articles, high quality, large sample studies are still needed to confirm the results of the study.
【作者单位】：重庆市第三人民医院口腔科;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;
【分类号】：R783.5

【相似文献】