Statement of problem

Conventional techniques (CTs) for complete denture fabrication involve a series of clinical and laboratory steps. A simplification of this process has been advocated, but whether simplified techniques result in acceptable treatment outcomes is unclear.

Purpose

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficiency of simplified denture fabrication techniques in comparison with CTs.

Material and Methods

The standard methodological procedures prescribed by the Cochrane Collaboration for systematic review and meta-analysis were used. An electronic search (MEDLINE through PubMed, Cochrane trial registry, and Scopus) and a manual search up to February 2020 were made to identify studies. Only randomized controlled trials involving edentulous adults requiring complete denture treatment were included.

Results

Nineteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The pooled estimate of the included studies for patient satisfaction at 6 months marginally favored the simplified method of denture fabrication (standardized mean difference=0.02 [95% confidence interval {CI} -0.22 to 0.27]). The pooled estimate of the included studies for clinical time and cost of fabrication favored the simplified method (mean difference=-77.34 [95% CI -122.45 to -32.24] and mean difference=-85.89 [95% CI -170.02 to -1.77] respectively).

Conclusions

Simplified techniques were cost effective and less time consuming than the CT, with no significant difference in patient satisfaction or oral health-related quality of life. The high risk of bias and heterogeneity among studies requires that the results be considered cautiously.

中文翻译：

---

简化与传统义齿制作方法的效率：系统评价和荟萃分析

问题陈述

用于完整义齿制作的传统技术 (CT) 涉及一系列临床和实验室步骤。已经提倡简化这个过程，但简化的技术是否会导致可接受的治疗结果尚不清楚。

目的

本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估简化假牙制造技术与 CT 相比的效率。

材料与方法

使用 Cochrane Collaboration 规定的标准方法学程序进行系统评价和荟萃分析。进行了电子搜索（MEDLINE 通过 PubMed、Cochrane 试验注册和 Scopus）和截至 2020 年 2 月的手动搜索以识别研究。仅纳入了涉及需要全口义齿治疗的无牙成人的随机对照试验。

结果

19 项研究符合纳入标准。纳入研究对 6 个月时患者满意度的汇总估计略有利于义齿制作的简化方法（标准化平均差 = 0.02 [95% 置信区间 {CI} -0.22 至 0.27]）。纳入研究的临床时间和制造成本的汇总估计有利于简化方法（平均差异 =-77.34 [95% CI -122.45 至 -32.24] 和平均差异 =-85.89 [95% CI -170.02 至 -1.77]分别）。

结论

与 CT 相比，简化技术具有成本效益且耗时更少，患者满意度或口腔健康相关的生活质量没有显着差异。研究之间的高偏倚和异质性风险要求谨慎考虑结果。