A Five-year Multi-practice Clinical Study on Posterior Resin-bonded Bridges
A Five-year Multi-practice Clinical Study on Posterior Resin-bonded Bridges
复制标题
后路树脂桥五年多实践临床研究
DOI：
10.1177/00220345980770041401
复制
发表时间：
1998
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
M. V. van’t Hof
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
R. De Kanter;N. Creugers;C. Verzijden;M. V. van’t Hof
以前的临床观察显示，树脂桥用于后牙置换比前牙树脂桥的固位更小。然而，改进的粘合程序和制备设计可能对这些修复体的功能耐久性有积极的影响。本研究报告了一项随机对照临床试验的最终分析，在该试验中，对不同设计的后路树脂桥进行了至少5年的评估。操作假设是后路树脂粘接桥中使用的粘接系统和制备设计对这些修复体的存活和临床功能有影响。本研究中的生存被定义为两个层面：(1)“完全”生存（没有任何脱粘的生存）和(2)“功能”生存（包括一次保留丧失和原始RBB成功重新粘接而没有进一步脱粘的生存）。至于“完全”存活，用于修复体粘附到基牙的粘接系统（蚀刻/Clearfil F2，喷砂/Panavia EX和二氧化硅涂层/Microfill Pontic C）之间没有明显差异。完全生存的可变“准备形式”（传统准备形式vs.改良准备形式）在统计学上有利于改良准备形式（62% vs. 46%），但不影响功能生存。在“功能性”存活方面，二氧化硅涂层和Microfill Pontic C的组合比其他粘合系统更有保持性（90%的存活率比72%和75%，p < 0.01）。因子定位对两种生存水平都非常重要[Cox's PH模型，p = 0.0002 (Cox, 1972)]：上颌修复体的五年“完全”生存率为65%，下颌骨修复体的五年“功能”生存率为40%，而五年“功能”生存率分别为89%和68%。结果表明，在基牙内预备牙槽有利于后牙树脂桥的成活。树脂桥放置在上颌比下颌骨有更好的预后。在这项研究中使用的粘接系统似乎对失败的机会没有影响。在再粘接后树脂粘接桥中，硅涂层/微填充Pontic C粘接系统比其他测试系统具有更强的固位性。
Previous clinical observations have revealed that resin-bonded bridges for posterior tooth replacements are less retentive than anterior resin-bonded bridges. Improved bonding procedures and preparation designs, however, may have a positive effect on the functional durability of these restorations. The present study reports the final analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial in which different designs of posterior resin-bonded bridges were evaluated for a period of at least 5 years. The operational hypothesis was that the bonding system and the preparation design used in posterior resin-bonded bridges have an influence on the survival and clinical functioning of these restorations. Survival in this study was defined at two levels: (1) 'complete' survival (survival without any debonding), and (2) 'functional' survival (survival including loss of retention on one occasion and successful rebonding of the original RBB without further debonding). With regard to 'complete' survival, no significant differences were found between the bonding systems used for adherence of the restorations to abutment teeth (etching/Clearfil F2, sandblasting/Panavia EX, and silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C). The variable 'preparation form' (conventional preparation form vs. modified preparation form) for complete survival was statistically in favor of the modified preparation form (62% vs. 46%), but did not influence the functional survival. With regard to 'functional' survival, the combination of silica coating and Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other bonding systems (90% survival vs. 72% and 75%, p < 0.01). Factor location was found to be highly significant for both survival levels [Cox's PH model, p = 0.0002 (Cox, 1972)]: The five-year 'complete' survival rates were 65% for maxillary restorations and 40% for mandibular restorations, while the five-year 'functional' survival rates were 89% and 68%, respectively. It is concluded that preparation of grooves in abutment teeth for posterior resin-bonded bridges is beneficial to their chance of survival. Resin-bonded bridges placed in the maxilla have a better prognosis than those made in the mandible. The bonding systems used in this study appear to have no influence on the chance of failure. In rebonded posterior resin-bonded bridges, the bonding system silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other systems tested.
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1972
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
D. Cox
通讯作者：
D. Cox