期刊导航

论文摘要

比较隧道术及冠向复位瓣术治疗牙龈退缩的疗效及长期稳定性的Meta分析

Comparison of the efficacy and long-term stability of tunnel technique and coronally advanced flap in the treatment of gingival recession: a Meta-analysis

作者:程小明, 唐睿, 葛自力

Author:Cheng Xiaoming, Tang Rui, Ge Zili

收稿日期:2023-02-10          年卷(期)页码:2023,41(4):450-450-462

期刊名称:华西口腔医学杂志

Journal Name:West China Journal of Stomatology

关键字:隧道术,冠向复位瓣术,牙龈退缩,根面覆盖术,结缔组织移植术,Meta分析,

Key words:tunnel technique,coronally advanced flap,gingival recession,root coverage,connective tissue graft,Meta-analysis,

基金项目:国家自然科学基金(81671028)

中文摘要

目的 系统评价隧道术(TUN)和冠向复位瓣(CAF)联合结缔组织移植术(CTG)治疗牙龈退缩的疗效及长期稳定性。 方法 通过计算机检索PubMed、Web of Science、Embase、CNKI数据库,搜集相关的临床随机对照试验(RCT),只有用于比较CAF与TUN的RCT才被纳入本篇Meta分析。检索时间自建库至2022年9月1日。 结果 本研究共纳入8项RCT,包括305位受试者的454个退缩位点。Meta分析结果显示:在主要指标平均根面覆盖率(MRC)长期稳定性方面,CAF组、TUN组在短期和长期结果比较上差异无统计学意义,分别是[MD:1.45%,95% CI(-2.93%,5.82%),P=0.52]、[MD:-0.70%,95%CI(-6.41%,5.00%),P=0.81],但CAF组在术后MRC长期结果上较TUN组表现更佳[MD:5.69%,95%CI(0.87%,10.50%),P=0.02],其中完全根面覆盖率(CRC)分析结果与MRC结果大致相同。次要指标角化龈宽度(KTW)增长量,短期内TUN组显著优于CAF组[MD:-0.38 mm,95%CI(-0.67 mm,-0.10 mm),P=0.008],长期结果显示两组差异无统计学意义[MD:-0.26 mm,95%CI(-0.94 mm,0.43 mm),P=0.46]。次要指标根面覆盖美学评分(RES),TUN组优于CAF组,差异具有统计学意义[MD:0.62,95%CI(0.28,0.96),P=0.000 3]。术后VAS疼痛指数评分,由于纳入文献统计的结果较少,且异质性太大,分析的结果未见显著性差异[MD:0.53,95%CI(-1.96,3.03),P=0.68]。 结论 本研究发现CAF+CTG和TUN+CTG在治疗牙龈退缩均可取得良好CRC,且CAF比TUN表现更佳,两组均能取得良好的长期稳定性。在术后RES,TUN组较CAF组评分更高。考虑到本研究存在一定的局限性,未来仍需要更大样本、更高质量、更长随访时间的临床试验评估TUN在牙龈退缩手术的疗效。

英文摘要

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and long-term stability of tunnel technique (TUN) and coronally advanced flap (CAF) combined with connective tissue graft (CTG) in treating gingival recession.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CNKI were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trial (RCT) of CAF+CTG compared to TUN+CTG in the treatment of Miller class Ⅰ or Ⅱ gingival recession on September 1, 2022.ResultsThere were 8 RCTs with 305 patients (454 recession sites) participating. The results of the Meta-analysis revealed that, in terms of mean root coverage (MRC) of main indicators, no significant difference was found between the CAF group and the TUN group in both short- and long-term results, which were [MD: 1.45%, 95%CI (-2.93%, 5.82%),P=0.52] and [MD: -0.70%, 95%CI (-6.41%, 5.00%),P=0.81]. However, the CAF group outperformed the TUN group in the long term [MD: 5.69%, 95%CI (0.87%, 10.50%),P=0.02], and the results of complete root coverage (CRC) analysis were similar to those of MRC. In the short term, the TUN group grew keratinized gingiva significantly faster than the CAF group [MD: -0.38 mm, 95%CI (-0.67 mm, -0.10 mm),P=0.008]. Long-term findings revealed no significant difference between the two groups [MD: -0.26 mm, 95%CI (-0.94 mm, 0.43 mm),P=0.46]. The TUN group’s secondary index root coverage esthetic score (RES) was statistically significantly higher than the CAF group’s [MD: 0.62, 95%CI (0.28, 0.96),P=0.000 3]. Given that there were few results included in the literature and the heterogeneity was too great, no significant difference was observed in the postoperative VAS pain index score [MD: 0.53, 95%CI (-1.96, 3.03),P=0.68].ConclusionThis study discovered that both CAF+CTG and TUN+CTG can achieve good root coverage in treating gingival recession, with CAF outperforming TUN and both groups achie-ving good long-term stability. After the operation, the TUN group had a higher RES than the CAF group. Given the limitations of this study, more high-quality studies are needed in the future to demonstrate the efficacy of TUN in gingival retraction surgery.

下一条:Twin-block矫治器对安氏Ⅱ类错患者髁突影响的Meta分析

关闭

Copyright © 2020四川大学期刊社 版权所有.

地址:成都市一环路南一段24号

邮编:610065