Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses
Fifteen-year survival of resin-bonded vs full-coverage fixed dental prostheses
复制标题
树脂粘合修复体与全覆盖固定假牙的十五年生存率
DOI：
10.1016/j.jpor.2019.02.004
复制
发表时间：
2019
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Yamashita A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yoshida T;Kurosaki Y;Mine A;Kimura-Ono A;Mino T;Osaka S;Nakagawa S;Maekawa K;Kuboki T;Yatani H;Yamashita A
目的：我们明确了树脂粘合固定假牙 (RBFDP) 的累积生存率和无事件率，并将其与固定假牙 (FDP) 进行比较，以细化非生存/事件以及非生存/事件后拔牙的危险因素。 方法：研究对象选自连续就诊于冈山大学医院固定修复诊所的所有患者。符合资格的患者是接受 3 单元金属框架 2 保持器（翼-翼）RBFDP 或传统全覆盖 FDP（RBFDP/FDP：129/177 假体）的患者。数据采用Kaplan-Meier分析、对数秩检验、Mann-Whitney检验、卡方检验和Cox比例风险分析进行分析。结果：RBFDP组15年累积生存率为66.5%，FDP组为61.6%，差异无统计学意义（p=0.59）。 RBFDP组和FDP组的15年累积无事件率为53.4%和59.2%，没有显着差异（p=0.52）。在使用治疗方法、性别、年龄、剩余牙齿数量和治疗部位作为解释变量的分析模型中，没有发现与 RBFDPs/FDPs 的非存活和无事件相关的显着危险因素。 RBFDP/FDP 因拔除基牙而导致无法存活的病例数显着低于 RBFDP（p < 0.01）。此外，基牙作为非活体牙齿被确定为 RBFDP/FDP 的危险因素，导致因基牙拔除而导致无法存活。结论：本研究首次表明 RBFDP 作为修复治疗方案，对于有轻微或无基牙蛀牙的患者应选择 RBFDP。
Purpose: We clarified cumulative survival and event-free rates of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) and compared them to those of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) to refine risk factors for non-survival/event and use of tooth extraction after the period of non-survival/event.Methods: Study subjects were selected among all patients who consecutively attended the Fixed Prosthodontic Clinic of Okayama University Hospital. Eligible patients were those who received 3-unit metal-framed 2-retainer (wing–wing) RBFDPs or conventional full-coverage FDPs (RBFDPs/FDPs: 129/177 prostheses). Data were analyzed by Kaplan–Meier analysis with the log-rank test, Mann–Whitney test, chi-square test, and Cox proportional hazards analysis.Results: The 15-year cumulative survival rates were 66.5% for the RBFDP group and 61.6% for the FDP group, which were not significantly different (p= 0.59). The 15-year cumulative event-free rates were 53.4% for the RBFDP group and 59.2% for the FDP group, which were not significantly different (p= 0.52). No significant risk factors related to non-survival and event-free of RBFDPs/FDPs were identified in the analysis model using treatment method, sex, age, number of remaining teeth, and treatment site as explanatory variables. The number of cases in which RBFDPs/FDPs resulted in non-survival due to abutment tooth extraction was significantly lower in RBFDPs (p< 0.01). Further, the abutment tooth as a non-vital tooth was identified as a risk factor for RBFDPs/FDPs resulting in non-survival due to abutment tooth extraction.Conclusions: The present study is the first to indicate RBFDP as a prosthetic treatment option which should be selected for patients with slight or no abutment tooth decay.