CAJ | 학술논문

目的：系统评价氧化锆种植体基台的机械性能和对种植修复存活率的影响。方法：检索1998年1月-2014年2月pubmed、 Embase、 The Cocharane library，国内数据库检索CBM (~2014年2月)，另google学术手检灰色文献。纳入氧化锆基台的机械性能，存活时间的随机对照试验或前瞻性临床试验的文献。对纳入研究进行质量评价、数据提取，如有可能进行系统评价。结果：氧化锆基台的机械性能文献共纳入13篇，基台存活率5篇，仅1篇为随机对照实验，氧化锆基台抗折强度大于300N，可运用于前牙及前磨牙区，在磨牙区是否适用需更多文献支持。与钛基台相比，氧化锆基台存活率无统计学差异，5年存活率>95%。结论：现有的证据表明，氧化锆基台抗折强度较大且存活率较高，可应用于临床。因纳入文献较少，各个研究实验设计变量大，无法进行meta-分析，受纳入文献数量和质量的限制，本次分析结果尚有待于高质量的大样本随机对照试验以予证实。
목적：계통평개양화고충식체기태적궤계성능화대충식수복존활솔적영향。방법：검색1998년1월-2014년2월pubmed、 Embase、 The Cocharane library，국내수거고검색CBM (~2014년2월)，령google학술수검회색문헌。납입양화고기태적궤계성능，존활시간적수궤대조시험혹전첨성림상시험적문헌。대납입연구진행질량평개、수거제취，여유가능진행계통평개。결과：양화고기태적궤계성능문헌공납입13편，기태존활솔5편，부1편위수궤대조실험，양화고기태항절강도대우300N，가운용우전아급전마아구，재마아구시부괄용수경다문헌지지。여태기태상비，양화고기태존활솔무통계학차이，5년존활솔>95%。결론：현유적증거표명，양화고기태항절강도교대차존활솔교고，가응용우림상。인납입문헌교소，각개연구실험설계변량대，무법진행meta-분석，수납입문헌수량화질량적한제，본차분석결과상유대우고질량적대양본수궤대조시험이여증실。
Objective:To use a systematic review technique to estimate the mechanical properties and the survival of the zirconia abutment. Methods:We carried out a systematic search of electronic databases (pubmed、 EMBASE、 Cocharane library, CBM)for all prospective trials or randomized controlled trials about the mechanical properties and the survival of the zirconia abutment, reported from 1998 so far. Quality assessment was performed that met the eligibility criteria and the data were then extracted and analyzed. Results: Thirteen articles about the mechanical properties, five about the survival of the zir-conia abutment were found to meet the eligibility criteria. The 18 articles were analyzed, only 1 is the randomized controlled trials. The fracture strength of zirconia abutment was exceeded 300N, for maxi-mum incisal bite forces. Adjustment in the molar area needs more documents to support. There was no significant difference of the abutment survival rate between titanium abutment and zirconia abutment, which was above 95%. Conclusion: The existing evidence show that zirconia abutment can be applied to clinical use due to the high flexural strength and survival rate. No meta-analysis was performed be-cause there were too few studies in each review category and great variations in study design were evi-dent. Further evaluations in adequately powered large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.