請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60220
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 林立德(Li-Deh Lin) | |
dc.contributor.author | Mei-Lin Lee | en |
dc.contributor.author | 李玫霖 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-16T10:13:49Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-19 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2013-09-24 | |
dc.date.issued | 2013 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2013-08-19 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Andreas Stang (2010). Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 25: 603-605
Aboushala A, Kugel G, Hurley E (1996). Class II composite resin restorations using glass-ionomer liners: microleakage studies. J Clin Pediatr Dent 21: 67-70. Albers HF (2000). Ceramometal bonded inlays and onlays. J Esthet Dent 12: 122-130. Bagis YH, Rueggeberg FA (2000). The effect of post-cure heating on residual, unreacted monomer in a commercial resin composite. Dent Mater 16: 244-247. Bartlett D, Sundaram G (2006). An up to 3-year randomized clinical study comparing indirect and direct resin composites used to restore worn posterior teeth. Int J Prosthodont 19: 613-617. Bayne, Stephen C, Thompson, Jeffrey Y, Swift, Edward J, Stamatiades, Perry, & Wilkerson, Michelle. (1998). A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 129: 567-577. Berg E, Nesse H, Skavland RJ, Liu Q, Boe OE (2008). Three-year split-mouth randomized clinical comparison between crowns fabricated in a titanium-zirconium and a gold-palladium alloy. Int J Prosthodont 21: 312-318. Bindl A, Mormann WH (2003). Clinical and SEM evaluation of all-ceramic chair-side CAD/CAM-generated partial crowns. Eur J Oral Sci 111: 163-169. Blatz MB (2002). Long-term clinical success of all-ceramic posterior restorations. Quintessence Int 33: 415-426. Bottenberg P, Alaerts M, Keulemans F (2007). A prospective randomised clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: three-year results. J Dent 35: 163-171. Bottenberg P, Jacquet W, Alaerts M, Keulemans F (2009). A prospective randomized clinical trial of one bis-GMA-based and two ormocer-based composite restorative systems in class II cavities: Five-year results. J Dent 37: 198-203. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E (2008). Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 24: 90-101. Brucho JF, El-Mowafy O (2002). Longevity and Clinical Performance of IPS-Empress Ceramic Restorations -A Literature Review. J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68: 233-7. Buonocore MG (1955). A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34: 849-853. Buonocore MG (1963). Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restoration materials. J Am Dent Assoc 67: 382-391. Buonocore MG, Matsui A, Gwinnett AJ (1968). Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol 13: 61-70. Choi KK, Ferracane JL, Hilton TJ, Charlton D (2000). Properties of packable dental composites. J Esthet Dent 12(4): 216-226. Coelho Santos MJ, Mondelli RF, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2004). Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays and onlays fabricated with two systems: two-year clinical follow up. Oper Dent 29: 123-130. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ (2007). Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 98: 389-404. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguercio AD, Demarco FF (2006). A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 34: 427-435. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, Loguercio AD, Moraes RR, Bronkhorst EM, Demarco FF (2011). 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 27: 955-963 Davidson CL (1994). Glass-ionomer bases under posterior composites. J Esthet Dent 6: 223-224. Demarco FF, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ (2012). Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater 28: 87-101. Desai PD, Das UK (2011). Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic inlay and resin composite: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 22: 877. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C (1994). Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ 309: 1286-1291. Dijken JW, Lindberg A (2009). Clinical effectiveness of a low-shrinkage resin composite: a five-year evaluation. J Adhes Dent 11: 143-148. Dukic W, Dukic OL, Milardovic S, Delija B (2010). Clinical evaluation of indirect composite restorations at baseline and 36 months after placement. Oper Dent 35: 156-164. Dyer SR, Lassila LV, Jokinen M, Vallittu PK (2004). Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite. Dent Mater 20: 947-955. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629-634. Ernst CP, Brandenbusch M, Meyer G, Canbek K, Gottschalk F, Willershausen B (2006). Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 10: 119-125. Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Carvalho CA, Franco EB, van Dijken JW, Navarro MF (2009). Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: a five-year follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc 140: 447-454. Fasbinder DJ, Dennison JB, Heys DR, Lampe K (2005). The clinical performance of CAD/CAM-generated composite inlays. J Am Dent Assoc 136: 1714-1723. Ferracane JL (2011). Resin composite--state of the art. Dent Mater 27: 29-38. Ferracane JL, Condon JR (1992). Post-cure heat treatments for composites: properties and fractography. Dent Mater 8: 290-295. Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Kramer N (2008). Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 10: 393-8 Frankenberger R, Reinelt C, Petschelt A, Kramer N (2009). Operator vs. material influence on clinical outcome of bonded ceramic inlays. Dental Materials 25: 960-968. Goldstein GR, Preston JD (2002). Therapy: anecdote, experience, or evidence? Dent Clin North Am 46: 21-28. Hasegawa EA, Boyer DB, Chan DC (1989). Microleakage of indirect composite inlays. Dent Mater 5: 388-391. Hayashi M, Yeung CA (2003). Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev(1), CD003450. Hickel R, Manhart J (2001). Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3: 45-64. Hurst D (2010). Indirect or direct restorations for heavily restored posterior adult teeth? Evid Based Dent 11: 116-117. Huth KC, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R, Manhart J (2011). Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing cavities placed by dental students: results after 4 years. J Dent 39: 478-488. Ilie N, Hickel R (2009). Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin Oral Investig 13: 427-438. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ, 323: 42-46. Kramer N, Garcia-Godoy F, Reinelt C, Feilzer AJ, Frankenberger R (2011). Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in extended Class II cavities after six years. Dent Mater 27: 455-464. Kramer N, Reinelt C, Garcia-Godoy F, Taschner M, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2009). Nanohybrid composite vs. fine hybrid composite in extended class II cavities: clinical and microscopic results after 2 years. Am J Dent 22: 228-234. Kramer N, Reinelt C, Richter G, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R (2009). Nanohybrid vs. fine hybrid composite in Class II cavities: clinical results and margin analysis after four years. Dent Mater 25: 750-759. Krifka S, Anthofer T, Fritzsch M, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Federlin M (2009). Ceramic inlays and partial ceramic crowns: influence of remaining cusp wall thickness on the marginal integrity and enamel crack formation in vitro. Oper Dent 34: 32-42. Kugel G, Ferrari M (2000). The science of bonding: from first to sixth generation. J Am Dent Assoc 131: 20S-25S. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pai CA (2011). Evaluation of failure risks in ceramic restorations for endodontically treated premolar with MOD preparation. Dent Mater 27: 431-438. Lindberg A, Dijken JW, Lindberg M (2007). Nine-year evaluation of a polyacid-modified resin composite/resin composite open sandwich technique in Class II cavities. J Dent 35: 124-129. Lopes LM, Leitao JG, Douglas WH (1991). Effect of a new resin inlay/onlay restorative material on cuspal reinforcement. Quintessence Int 22: 641-645. Malament KA, Socransky SS (2001). Survival of Dicor glass-ceramic dental restorations over 16 years. Part III: effect of luting agent and tooth or tooth-substitute core structure. J Prosthet Dent 86: 511-519. Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R (2004). Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent 29: 481-508. Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R (2010a). Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Adhes Dent 12: 237-243. Manhart J, Chen HY, Mehl A, Hickel R (2010b). Clinical study of indirect composite resin inlays in posterior stress-bearing preparations placed by dental students: results after 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. Quintessence Int 41: 399-410. Manhart J, Neuerer P, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Hickel R (2000b). Three-year clinical evaluation of direct and indirect composite restorations in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 84: 289-296. Manhart J, Scheibenbogen-Fuchsbrunner A, Chen HY, Hickel R (2000a). A 2-year clinical study of composite and ceramic inlays. Clin Oral Investig 4: 192-198. Mannocci F, Bertelli E, Sherriff M, Watson TF, Ford TR (2002). Three-year clinical comparison of survival of endodontically treated teeth restored with either full cast coverage or with direct composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 88: 297-301. Massler M (1980). Geriatric dentistry: root caries in the elderly. J Prosthet Dent 44: 147-149. Miara P (1998). Aesthetic guidelines for second-generation indirect inlay and onlay composite restorations. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 10: 423-431; quiz 432. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y (2009). A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J 28: 44-56. Molin MK, Karlsson SL (2000). A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int Journal Prosthodont 13: 194-200. Monteiro PM, Manso MC, Gavinha S, Melo P (2010). Two-year clinical evaluation of packable and nanostructured resin-based composites placed with two techniques. J Am Dent Assoc 141: 319-329. Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E (1982). The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 16: 265-273. Nandini S (2010). Indirect resin composites. J Conserv Dent 13: 184-194. Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM, Loomans BA (2007). Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total-etch posterior composite resin restorations. J Adhes Dent 9: 469-475. Opdam NJ, Loomans BA, Roeters FJ, Bronkhorst EM (2004). Five-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations placed by dental students. J Dent 32: 379-383. Pallesen U, Qvist V (2003). Composite resin fillings and inlays. An 11-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig 7: 71-79. Pallesen U, van Dijken JW (2000). An 8-year evaluation of sintered ceramic and glass ceramic inlays processed by the Cerec CAD/CAM system. Eur J Oral Sci 108(3): 239-246. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH (2007). A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res, 18: 73-85. Pol CW, Kalk W (2011). A systematic review of ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: an update. Int J Prosthodont 24: 566-575. Poon EC, Smales RJ, Yip KH (2005). Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid posterior resin-based composites: results at 3.5 years. J Am Dent Assoc 136: 1533-1540. Rasmusson CG, Kohler B, Odman P (1998). A 3-year clinical evaluation of two composite resins in class-II cavities. Acta Odontol Scand 56: 70-75. Rekow ED (2006). Dental CAD/CAM systems: a 20-year success story. J Am Dent Assoc 137: 5S-6S. Robinson PB, Moore BK, Swartz ML (1987). Comparison of microleakage in direct and indirect composite resin restorations in vitro. Oper Dent 12: 113-116. Rosenblum MA, Schulman A (1997). A review of all-ceramic restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 128: 297-307. Roznowski M, Bremer B, Geurtsen W (1991). Fracture resistance of human molars restored with various filling materials. Paper presented at the Moermann W H. Proceedings of the international symposium on computer restorations. Santos M, Mondelli R, Navarro M, Francischone C, Rubo J, Santos G Jr. (2012). Clinical Evaluation of Ceramic Inlays and Onlays Fabricated With Two Systems: Five-Year Follow-Up. Oper Dent 38: 3-11 Santos MJ, Bezerra RB (2005). Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques. J Can Dent Assoc 71: 585. Saridag S, Sevimay M, Pekkan G (2013). Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored With All-ceramic Inlays and Onlays: An In Vitro Study. Oper Dent Feb 7 Shor A, Nicholls JI, Phillips KM, Libman, WJ (2003). Fatigue load of teeth restored with bonded direct composite and indirect ceramic inlays in MOD class II cavity preparations. Int J Prosthodont 16: 64-69. Smales, Roger J, Etemadi, Soheila. (2004). Survival of ceramic onlays placed with and without metal reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 91: 548-553. Soares C J, Celiberto L, Dechichi P, Fonseca RB, Martins LR (2005). Marginal integrity and microleakage of direct and indirect composite inlays: SEM and stereomicroscopic evaluation. Braz Oral Res 19: 295-301. Spreafico RC, Krejci I, Dietschi D (2005). Clinical performance and marginal adaptation of class II direct and semidirect composite restorations over 3.5 years in vivo. J Dent 33: 499-507. Stappert, C. F., Abe, P., Kurths, V., Gerds, T., & Strub, J. R. (2008). Masticatory fatigue, fracture resistance, and marginal discrepancy of ceramic partial crowns with and without coverage of compromised cusps. J Adhes Dent 10: 41-48. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P (2001). A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 32: 199-205. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P (2001). A 5-year clinical study of indirect and direct resin composite and ceramic inlays. Quintessence Int 32: 199-205. Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P (2006). A prospective clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays: ten-year results. Quintessence Int 37: 139-144. van de Sande FH, Opdam NJ, Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Correa MB, Demarco FF, Cenci MS (2013). Patient Risk Factors' Influence on Survival of Posterior Composites. J Dent Res 92: S78-83 van Dijken JW (1994). A 6-year evaluation of a direct composite resin inlay/onlay system and glass ionomer cement-composite resin sandwich restorations. Acta Odontol Scand 52: 368-376. van Dijken J W (2000). Direct resin composite inlays/onlays: an 11 year follow-up. J Dent 28: 299-306. van Dijken JW (2003). Resin-modified glass ionomer cement and self-cured resin composite luted ceramic inlays. A 5-year clinical evaluation. Dent Mater 19: 670-674. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (1998). The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 26: 1-20. Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D'Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V (2003). Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent 31: 395-405. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S (2012). Evaluation of zirconium-oxide-based ceramic single-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) generated with two CAD/CAM systems compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal single-unit posterior FDPs: a 5-year clinical prospective study. J Prosthodont 21: 265-269. Vilkinis V, Horsted-Bindslev P, Baelum V (2000). Two-year evaluation of class II resin-modified glass ionomer cement/composite open sandwich and composite restorations. Clin Oral Investig 4: 133-139. Wassell RW, Walls AW, McCabe JF (2000). Direct composite inlays versus conventional composite restorations: 5-year follow-up. J Dent 28: 375-382. Welbury RR, Murray JJ (1990). A clinical trial of the glass-ionomer cement-composite resin 'sandwich' technique in Class II cavities in permanent premolar and molar teeth. Quintessence Int 21: 507-512. Wendt SL Jr. (1991). Microleakage and cusp fracture resistance of heat-treated composite resin inlays. Am J Dent 4: 10-14. Whiting P, Westwood M, Burke M, Sterne J, Glanville J (2008). Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61: 357-364. Wucher M, Grobler SR, Senekal, PJ (2002). A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations. Am J Dent 15: 274-278. 李宛柔、林怡君、于耀華、賴玉玲 (2009) 後設分析之介紹。牙醫學雜誌(J Dent Sci)。29:63-68 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/60220 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 目的:
臨床上我們很常會面對到窩洞大小為第二級以上的缺損,可使用的牙齒顏色填補材料為樹脂及陶瓷,製作方式又可分為直接、間接(嵌體、冠蓋體、局部牙冠、完整牙冠)。大部分在不同修復體設計的比較都是實驗室的研究,且沒有一個一致的結論。大部分的臨床研究也沒有足夠的資訊告訴我們間接修復體中,嵌體、冠蓋體、局部牙冠,有沒有牙阜的覆蓋及修磨量的多少,與直接修復體在使用不同的材料時,抗斷裂性(fracture resistance)及其他臨床表現上是否有差別。所以我們希望能夠集結許多臨床試驗,利用統合分析(meta-analysis),在這個部分做出一個統整。 材料與方法: 我們搜尋範圍包括電子資料庫(PubMed、Medline、CENTRAL、全國期刊聯合資料庫,中國知識資源總庫—CNKI 系列數據、全國博碩士論文資訊加值網、華藝線上圖書館),相關期刊進行人工手搜尋,及使用Google學術搜尋,從西元1997到2012年做全面系統性的搜尋。由失敗個數及「牙齒-年」計算事件發生率,使用統合分析方式比較使用不同材料及不同設計的修復體間臨床表現。 結果: 最後篩選出36篇文章,將研究中使用的修復體依材料及設計的不同分為7組,只有5組可以納入統計分析,分別是1.「複合樹脂直接填補」比「複合樹脂加上玻璃離子的三明治法」,2.「複合樹脂直接填補」比「複合樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」,3.「複合樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」比「陶瓷樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」,4.「複合樹脂直接填補」間比較,5.「陶瓷嵌體或冠蓋體」間的比較。統計的結果各組間事件發生率的差異沒有達到統計上顯著的差異,但其中陶瓷嵌體的表現有比樹脂嵌體要好的趨勢。在各組中造成失敗的原因主要是修復體或牙齒的斷裂、蛀牙、牙髓問題。 結論:每組中進行統計分析的文章篇數皆不多,有可能因此使得彼此的差異不顯著,希望未來有更多的臨床試驗,可以做更詳盡的結果分析。此外或許可以使用更高階的Network meta-analysis,來將彼此間的結果串聯再一起。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose:
We often faced with the cavity size above standard class II cavity in daily practice. We can use the tooth-color restoration like composite and ceramics material and direct and indirect restoration (in/ onlays, partial crown, full coverage crown) to treat them. Most of the comparison of different prosthesis design are in vitro studies and there is no consistent finding. In addition, we don't have a clinical guideline for us to use the different materials and different designs of restoration. Therefore we want to use the meta-analysis method and search many clinical trials to compare the clinical performance between the tooth-colored restoration in class II defects and larger ones. Materials and methods: We did a comprehensive systematic search that includes many electronic databases (Pubmed, Medline, Google scholar, CENTRAL, STICNET in Taiwan, NDLTD in Taiwan, Airiti library in Taiwan, CNKI in China) and hand-searched the relevant journals from 1997 to 2012. By the number of failure and 'Tooth - Year', we calculated the incidence rate and compared the clinical performance of different materials (composite and ceramics) and different designs of prosthesis by means of Meta-analysis. Results: We sieved out all articles and finally selected 36 articles. According to different materials and restoration designs, these articles are divided into 7 groups. At last, only 5 groups can be included in the Meta-analysis, 1.direct composite restoration v.s. composite direct restoration + GIC sandwich technique, 2.direct composite restoration v.s. composite in/onlays, 3.'composite in/onlays v.s. ceramic in/onlays', 4.comparison between different types of composite resin direct restoration, 5.comparison between different types of ceramic in/onlays'. There is no statistically significant difference of incidence rate in each groups. But the ceramic inlays tend to better than the composite inlays. The main failure mode in all groups are fracture of restoration or tooth, caries, endodontic problem. Conclusions: Because the quantity of articles in each groups are small, that may results in no significant difference between these groups. We need the more and better prospective clinical trials for Meta-analysis in the future. Moreover, we also can use the advanced statistical method just like Network meta-analysis that can combine the data from more different group . | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-16T10:13:49Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-102-R99422023-1.pdf: 1807865 bytes, checksum: a0c328cdcc21d586769e9c653f6db378 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 口試委員會審定書
誌謝…………………………………………………………………… i 中文摘要 …………………………………………………………… ii 英文摘要 …………………………………………………………… iv 第一章 前言 …………………………………………………………1 1.1黏著系統的發展 ………………………………………………… 1 1.2直接修復體與間接修復體的比較 ……………………………… 3 1.3修復體設計的差別 …………………………………………… 4 1.4複合樹脂的簡介 ………………………………………………… 5 1.5陶瓷簡介 ………………………………………………………8 1.5.1 陶瓷的優點 ………………………………………………… 8 1.5.2 陶瓷分類介紹 …………………………………………… 9 1.5.3 陶瓷系統臨床表現………………………………………… 11 1.6系統性回顧之文獻回顧………………………………………… 12 1.7統合分析介紹…………………………………………………… 13 第二章 研究動機與目的 …………………………………………… 18 2.1研究動機 …………………………………………………………18 2.2目的 ……………………………………………………………… 18 2.3假設 ……………………………………………………………… 18 第三章 材料與方法 ………………………………………………… 19 3.1搜尋方向 ………………………………………………………… 19 3.2文獻搜尋 ………………………………………………………… 19 3.3文獻篩選納入標準 ……………………………………………… 21 3.4文獻排除標準 …………………………………………………… 21 3.5資料整理 ………………………………………………………… 21 3.6篩選方法 ………………………………………………………… 22 3.7文獻品質評估 …………………………………………………… 22 3.8資料數據收集 …………………………………………………… 24 3.9統計分析 ………………………………………………………… 24 第四章 結果 ………………………………………………………… 26 4.1搜尋結果 ………………………………………………………… 26 4.2統計分析結果 …………………………………………………… 29 4.2.1「複合樹脂直接填補」與「複合樹脂加上玻璃離子的三明治法」的比較…………………………………………………………… 29 4.2.2「複合樹脂直接填補」與「複合樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」的比較 ……………32 4.2.3「複合樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」與「陶瓷樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」的比較 …………33 4.2.4「複合樹脂直接填補」間比較………………………………34 4.2.5「陶瓷嵌體或冠蓋體」間的比較……………………………35 第五章 討論 5.1各組結果討論………………………………………………………37 5.1.1「複合樹脂直接填補」與「複合樹脂加上玻璃離子的三明治法」的比較…………………………………………………………… 37 5.1.2「複合樹脂直接填補」與「複合樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」的比較 ……………38 5.1.3「複合樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」與「陶瓷樹脂嵌體/冠蓋體」的比較 …………40 5.1.4「複合樹脂直接填補」間較…………………………………41 5.1.5「陶瓷嵌體或冠蓋體」間的比較……………………………42 5.2其他影響結果的原因………………………………………………43 5.3研究中的偏差………………………………………………………48 5.4沒有達到統計上顯著差異的可能原因……………………………49 第六章 結論……………………………………………………………50 表附錄 …………………………………………………………………51 圖附錄 …………………………………………………………………64 參考文獻 ………………………………………………………………67 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 牙齒顏色修復體於恆牙第二級窩洞缺損的臨床表現統合分析 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Meta-analysis of clinical performance of tooth-colored restoration for permanent teeth with class II cavity | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 101-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 杜裕康(Yu-Kang Tu) | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 洪志遠(Chi-Yuan Hong) | |
dc.subject.keyword | 牙齒顏色修復體,複合樹脂,陶瓷,統合分析, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | tooth-colored restoration,porcelain,ceramic,composite resi,meta-analysis, | en |
dc.relation.page | 81 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2013-08-20 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 牙醫專業學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 臨床牙醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 臨床牙醫學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-102-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 1.77 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。