Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Tooth-colored onlays and partial crowns for posterior teeth have been used increasingly in clinics. However, whether onlays/partial crowns could perform as well as full crowns in the posterior region was still not evaluated thoroughly.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted without language restrictions in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial and Web of science until September 2021. RCTs, prospective and retrospective observational studies with a mean follow-up of 1 year were selected. Cochrane Collaboration\'s tool was adopted for quality assessment of the RCT. The quality of observational studies was evaluated following Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The random-effects and fixed-effects model were employed for meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred fifty-seven articles were initially searched. Finally, one RCT was identified for quality assessment and five observational studies for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The RCT was of unclear risk of bias while five observational studies were evaluated as low risk. The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the survival between onlays/partial crowns and full crowns after 1 year (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.02-18.08; I2 = 57.0%; P = 0.127) and 3 years (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.20-2.17; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.747). For the success, onlays/partial crowns performed as well as crowns (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.20-1.72; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.881) at 3 years. No significant difference of crown fracture existed between the two methods (RD = 0.00, 95% CI: - 0.03-0.03; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.972).
CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-colored onlays/partial crowns performed as excellently as full crowns in posterior region in a short-term period. The conclusions should be further consolidated by RCTs with long-term follow-up.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted without language restrictions in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial and Web of science until September 2021. RCTs, prospective and retrospective observational studies with a mean follow-up of 1 year were selected. Cochrane Collaboration\'s tool was adopted for quality assessment of the RCT. The quality of observational studies was evaluated following Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The random-effects and fixed-effects model were employed for meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Four thousand two hundred fifty-seven articles were initially searched. Finally, one RCT was identified for quality assessment and five observational studies for qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The RCT was of unclear risk of bias while five observational studies were evaluated as low risk. The meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the survival between onlays/partial crowns and full crowns after 1 year (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.02-18.08; I2 = 57.0%; P = 0.127) and 3 years (OR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.20-2.17; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.747). For the success, onlays/partial crowns performed as well as crowns (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.20-1.72; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.881) at 3 years. No significant difference of crown fracture existed between the two methods (RD = 0.00, 95% CI: - 0.03-0.03; I2 = 0.0%; P = 0.972).
CONCLUSIONS: Tooth-colored onlays/partial crowns performed as excellently as full crowns in posterior region in a short-term period. The conclusions should be further consolidated by RCTs with long-term follow-up.
摘要：
背景：牙齿颜色的嵌体和后牙的部分牙冠已越来越多地用于临床。然而,对于高嵌体/部分冠是否能与后区的全冠一样，仍未进行彻底评估。
方法：在Pubmed，Embase,在2021年9月之前，Cochrane中央对照试验注册和科学网。RCT,选择前瞻性和回顾性观察性研究,平均随访1年.采用CochraneCollaboration的工具对RCT进行质量评估。根据纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估观察性研究的质量。采用随机效应和固定效应模型进行Meta分析。
结果：最初搜索了四千二百五十七篇文章。最后,确定了1项RCT用于质量评估,5项观察性研究用于定性综合和荟萃分析.RCT具有不清楚的偏倚风险，而五项观察性研究被评估为低风险。荟萃分析表明，1年后，高嵌体/部分冠与全冠之间的生存率差异无统计学意义（OR=0.55，95％CI：0.02-18.08；I2=57.0％；P=0.127）和3年（OR=0.65，95％CI：0.20-2.17；I2=0.0％；P=0.747）。为了成功,在3年时，高嵌体/部分冠的表现与冠的表现相同（OR=0.58，95％CI：0.20-1.72；I2=0.0％；P=0.881）。两种方法的冠骨折差异无统计学意义（RD=0.00，95％CI：-0.03-0.03；I2=0.0％；P=0.972）。
结论：在短期内，牙齿颜色的嵌体/部分牙冠在后部区域的表现与全冠一样出色。RCTs应通过长期后续行动进一步巩固结论。
方法：在Pubmed，Embase,在2021年9月之前，Cochrane中央对照试验注册和科学网。RCT,选择前瞻性和回顾性观察性研究,平均随访1年.采用CochraneCollaboration的工具对RCT进行质量评估。根据纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估观察性研究的质量。采用随机效应和固定效应模型进行Meta分析。
结果：最初搜索了四千二百五十七篇文章。最后,确定了1项RCT用于质量评估,5项观察性研究用于定性综合和荟萃分析.RCT具有不清楚的偏倚风险，而五项观察性研究被评估为低风险。荟萃分析表明，1年后，高嵌体/部分冠与全冠之间的生存率差异无统计学意义（OR=0.55，95％CI：0.02-18.08；I2=57.0％；P=0.127）和3年（OR=0.65，95％CI：0.20-2.17；I2=0.0％；P=0.747）。为了成功,在3年时，高嵌体/部分冠的表现与冠的表现相同（OR=0.58，95％CI：0.20-1.72；I2=0.0％；P=0.881）。两种方法的冠骨折差异无统计学意义（RD=0.00，95％CI：-0.03-0.03；I2=0.0％；P=0.972）。
结论：在短期内，牙齿颜色的嵌体/部分牙冠在后部区域的表现与全冠一样出色。RCTs应通过长期后续行动进一步巩固结论。
