Erpenstein H, Borchard R, Kerschbaum T
Münster, Germany, Private Practice.
J Prosthet Dent. 2000 May;83(5):530-4. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70010-2.
Alternatives to metal-ceramic restorations should possess clinical durability before being recommended to the dentist. Longitudinal clinical studies are required for evaluation so innovative types of restorations can meet the expectations of dentists and patients.
This study compared the performance of galvano-ceramic restorations (Auvo Galvano Crown [ACG]) and glass-ceramic individual crowns (Dicor) based on longitudinal clinical trials.
A total of 769 galvano-ceramic single crowns (AGC) in 322 patients and 173 glass-ceramic individual crowns (Dicor) in 88 patients were reviewed for 8 years and a maximum of 11 years, respectively, after cementation. Risk of fracture was determined with use of a survival analysis (Kaplan and Meier).
Partial ceramic cracking was observed at the time of the last recording of data in 11 galvano-ceramic crowns, 8 of the units remained in place. Two crowns became dislodged and 1 tooth exhibited a fractured root, despite an intact crown. One restoration was removed because of hypersensitivity and 1 with partial ceramic fracture. Forty-two of the glass-ceramic crowns were completely fractured. After a comparable 7 years under risk, 96.5% (+/-3.4; 95% confidence interval) of the galvano-ceramic premolar and molar crowns and 92% (+/- 8.5) of crowns placed on incisors and canines crowns were intact. The corresponding data for the glass-ceramic restorations were only 70% (+/- 10.6) in posterior and 82.7% (+/- 8. 1) in anterior quadrants.
Long-term results of electroformed individual crown restorations were superior to glass-ceramic restorations.
在向牙医推荐金属陶瓷修复体的替代方案之前,这些替代方案应具备临床耐久性。需要进行纵向临床研究来评估,以便创新型修复体能满足牙医和患者的期望。
本研究基于纵向临床试验比较了电铸陶瓷修复体(Auvo Galvano Crown [ACG])和玻璃陶瓷单冠(Dicor)的性能。
分别对322例患者的769个电铸陶瓷单冠(AGC)和88例患者的173个玻璃陶瓷单冠(Dicor)在粘固后进行了8年、最长11年的观察。采用生存分析(Kaplan-Meier法)确定骨折风险。
在最后一次记录数据时,11个电铸陶瓷冠出现部分陶瓷开裂,其中8个仍保留在位。2个冠脱落,1颗牙齿牙根折断,尽管冠完好无损。1个修复体因过敏被拆除,1个出现部分陶瓷骨折。42个玻璃陶瓷冠完全折断。在经历了相当的7年风险期后,电铸陶瓷前磨牙和磨牙冠有96.5%(±3.4;95%置信区间)完好,置于切牙和尖牙上的冠有92%(±8.5)完好。玻璃陶瓷修复体在后牙象限的相应数据仅为70%(±10.6),在前牙象限为82.7%(±8.1)。
电铸单冠修复体的长期效果优于玻璃陶瓷修复体。