中文(繁體)
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Journal of Dentistry 2015-Nov

Antibacterial effects of cavity lining: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

只有註冊用戶可以翻譯文章
登陸註冊
鏈接已保存到剪貼板
Falk Schwendicke
Yu-Kang Tu
Le-Yin Hsu
Gerd Göstemeyer

關鍵詞

抽象

OBJECTIVE

Cavity liners are frequently used prior placing a restoration, with one main aim being to reduce the number of remaining bacteria. We systematically appraised studies comparing antibacterial effects of different liners against each other or no liner.

UNASSIGNED

reporting the number of sterile cavities before/after lining or sealing, or the reduction in bacterial numbers (colony-forming-units) in two or more treatment groups were included. Treatments were categorized as: no/placebo liner, calcium hydroxide, mineral trioxide aggregate, antibiotic/disinfectant, calcium phosphates, zinc oxide eugenol, black copper cement, and glass ionomer cement liners. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed.

METHODS

From 113 identified studies, 14 (500 treated lesions) were included. Risk of bias was high or unclear. Based on 11 studies, network meta-analysis found mineral trioxide lining to yield the greatest probability of achieving sterile cavities after a lining/sealing period (73%), followed by antibiotic/disinfectant (8%) and zinc oxide eugenol (7%). Only six studies assessed bacterial reduction after lining/sealing, and zinc oxide eugenol was found to have the highest probability of achieving a bacterial reduction. In both analyses, not providing any lining was found to have low antibacterial effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this review and the included studies, certain liners seem more suitable to achieve sterile cavities or reduce bacterial numbers than others. Given the paucity of data and the unclear impact of remaining bacteria on clinical outcomes, further recommendations for specific cavity treatments prior a restoration are not possible.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to generally recommend cavity lining or the use of any specific liner based on their antibacterial effects. Dentists might continue to use liners, but should be aware that such use is not strongly supported by clinical studies.

加入我們的臉書專頁

科學支持的最完整的草藥數據庫

  • 支持55種語言
  • 科學支持的草藥療法
  • 通過圖像識別草藥
  • 交互式GPS地圖-在位置標記草藥(即將推出)
  • 閱讀與您的搜索相關的科學出版物
  • 通過藥效搜索藥草
  • 組織您的興趣並及時了解新聞研究,臨床試驗和專利

輸入症狀或疾病,並閱讀可能有用的草藥,輸入草藥並查看其所針對的疾病和症狀。
*所有信息均基於已發表的科學研究

Google Play badgeApp Store badge