Accuracy and Reliability of Methods to Measure Marginal Adaptation of Crowns and FDPs: A Literature Review
Accuracy and Reliability of Methods to Measure Marginal Adaptation of Crowns and FDPs: A Literature Review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/jopr.12006
复制
发表时间：
2013-07-01
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Hatamleh, Muhanad M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nawafleh, Noor A.;Mack, Florian;Hatamleh, Muhanad M.
目的回顾用于研究牙冠和固定牙修复体（FDP）边缘适应性的方法，并讨论所采用的测试变量及其对结果的影响。方法在PubMed、Scopus和奥维德等在线图书馆中检索评价牙冠和固定牙修复体边缘适应性的文章，使用以下关键词：边缘精度、边缘拟合、边缘间隙、边缘差异、拟合精度、牙冠和FPD。收集1970年至2011年12月期间的英文同行评审出版物，通过其摘要进行评价，如果符合纳入标准，则纳入。该标准涉及通过明确的实验方案评估牙冠和FDP边缘适应性的研究。排除标准涉及纵向前瞻性和回顾性临床评价，研究使用主观触觉，和其他预定义的criterions.Results共277篇论文被确定，只有183符合纳入标准。47.5%的文章使用直视技术，其次是横截面（23.5%）和印模复制（20.2%）技术。由于研究类型的差异，这些技术报告的边缘间隙值在单个树冠系统和不同系统之间存在差异（体内与体外）、样本量和每个样本的测量值、终点线设计，以及测量边缘间隙的阶段。结论由于测试方法的差异，对于各种冠系统的边缘适应性还缺乏共识，采用的实验方案。直视法是最常用的可重复结果的方法。此外，进行测试至少30个样本的实验设置，每个样本50次测量，应产生可靠的结果。此外，使用两种测量方法的组合可以用于验证结果。
Purpose To review methods used to investigate marginal adaptation of crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), and to discuss testing variables employed and their influence on results.Methods Online libraries including PubMed, Scopus, and Ovid were searched for articles evaluating the marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs using a combination of the keywords: marginal accuracy, marginal fit, marginal gap, marginal discrepancy, fitting accuracy, crown, and FPD. Peer-reviewed publications in English in the period 1970 to December 2011 were collected, evaluated by their abstract, and included if they met the inclusion criteria. The criteria involved studies evaluating marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs through clear experimental protocols. Exclusion criteria involved longitudinal prospective and retrospective clinical evaluations, studies using subjective tactile sensation, and other predefined criteria.Results A total of 277 papers were identified; only 183 met the inclusion criteria. Direct view technique was used by 47.5% of the articles followed by cross-sectioning (23.5%), and impression replica (20.2%) techniques. The marginal gap values reported by these techniques varied among individual crown systems and across different systems because of variations in study type (in vivo vs. in vitro), sample size and measurements per specimen, finish line design, and stage at which the marginal gap was measured.Conclusion There was a substantial lack of consensus relating to marginal adaptation of various crown systems due to differences in testing methods and experimental protocols employed. Direct view technique was the most commonly used method of reproducible results. Also, conducting an experimental set-up of testing a minimum of 30 specimens at 50 measurements per specimen should produce reliable results. Additionally, using a combination of two measurement methods can be useful in verification of results.