口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (10): 1076-1080.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.10.011

• 儿童口腔医学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

Hall技术治疗乳磨牙龋坏疗效的系统评价

刘瑶1, 王玲1, 杨维虹1, 韩林秀1, 刘兴容2*   

  1. 1. 西南医科大学口腔医学院 四川 泸州 646000;
    2. 西南医科大学附属口腔医院儿童口腔科 四川 泸州 646000
  • 收稿日期:2018-04-05 出版日期:2018-10-28 发布日期:2018-10-24
  • 通讯作者: 刘兴容,E-mail:liuxingrong163@163.com
  • 作者简介:刘瑶(1992~ ),女,四川人,硕士在读,主要从事牙体牙髓病学的基础和临床的研究。

Systematic Review on the Hall Technique for Children with Carious Primary Molars.

LIU Yao1, WANG Ling1, YANG Wei-hong1, HAN Lin-xiu1, LIU Xing-rong2*.   

  1. 1. School of Stomatology, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China;
    2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Stomatological Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou 646000, China.
  • Received:2018-04-05 Online:2018-10-28 Published:2018-10-24

PDF (PC)

272

摘要： 目的: 评价Hall技术用于治疗乳磨牙龋坏的疗效。方法: 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆(Cochrane Library)、PUBMED、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Excerpta Medical Database,Embase)、中国知网(China National Knowledge Infrastructure,CNKI)、中国生物医学文献数据库(China Biology Medicine disc,CBM)、维普数据库(VIP database,VIP)、万方数据库(Wanfang Database),同时对检索结果的参考文献进行检索,检索时间均为建库至2018年3月20日,搜集Hall技术和其他技术对比治疗乳磨牙龋坏的随机对照试验(randomized controlled trials,RCTs)。两位研究者对检索结果进行独立质量评估和数据提取,用RevMan 5.3软件进行分析,并采用GRADEpro 3.6软件对证据质量进行评价。结果: 共纳入6个RCTs涉及Hall技术与其他4种方法的对比。结果显示,Hall技术与传统金属预成冠技术和改良Hall技术(Carisolv去龋+Hall技术)治疗乳磨牙龋坏疗效比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);Hall技术与常规充填和非修复方式治疗乳磨牙龋坏疗效比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。定量证据质量评价分级(The Grading of Recommendations Assessment,Development and Evaluation,GRADE)显示,4组Meta分析结局质量为中或低。结论: Hall技术无需局部麻醉、不去龋、不备牙的方法治疗儿童乳磨牙龋坏疗效好,在临床应用中有一定优势,但还需更多高质量RCTs支持。

关键词: Hall技术, 乳磨牙, 龋坏, 系统评价

Abstract: Objective: To assess the efficacy of the Hall technique on carious primary molars. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PUBMED, Embase, CNKI, CBM, VIP and Wanfang Database (from the date of establishment of the databases to March 20, 2018) were searched for RCTs on the Hall technique for carious primary molars. References of the included studies were also checked. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was performed by RevMan5.3, and the evidences were graded by GRADEpro3.6. Results: Six studies involving the Hall technique and the other 4 methods were included. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference of efficacy between the Hall technique and traditional crown technique or the improved Hall technique (P>0.05). The results showed the efficacy of the Hall technique was better than conventional restorations and nonrestorative caries treatment (P<0.05). The qualities of evidence for outcomes of the four groups were rated as moderate or low. Conclusion: The Hall technique with no local anesthesia, no caries removal, and no teeth preparation has excellent curative effects, and it has some advantages in clinical application. But more high-quality RCTs are needed.

Key words: Hall technique, Primary molar, Dental caries, Systematic review