Manhart Juergen, Chen Hongyan, Hamm Gerald, Hickel Reinhard
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, Germany.
Oper Dent. 2004 Sep-Oct;29(5):481-508.
This review provides a survey on the longevity of restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities and assesses possible reasons for clinical failure. The dental literature, predominantly since 1990, was reviewed for longitudinal, controlled clinical studies and retrospective cross-sectional studies of posterior restorations. Only studies investigating the clinical performance of restorations in permanent teeth were included. Longevity and annual failure rates of amalgam, direct composite restorations, compomers, glass ionomers and derivative products, composite and ceramic inlays and cast gold restorations were determined for Class I and II cavities. Mean (SD) annual failure rates in posterior stress-bearing cavities are: 3.0% (1.9) for amalgam restorations, 2.2% (2.0) for direct composites, 3.6% (4.2) for direct composites with inserts, 1.1% (1.2) for compomer restorations, 7.2% (5.6) for regular glass ionomer restorations, 7.1% (2.8) for tunnel glass ionomers, 6.0% (4.6) for ART glass ionomers, 2.9% (2.6) for composite inlays, 1.9% (1.8) for ceramic restorations, 1.7% (1.6) for CAD/CAM ceramic restorations and 1.4% (1.4) for cast gold inlays and onlays. Publications from 1990 forward showed better results. Indirect restorations exhibited a significantly lower mean annual failure rate than direct techniques (p=0.0031). Longevity of dental restorations is dependent upon many different factors, including material, patient- and dentist-related. Principal reasons for failure were secondary caries, fracture, marginal deficiencies, wear and postoperative sensitivity. We need to learn to distinguish between reasons that cause early failures and those that are responsible for restoration loss after several years of service.
本综述对承受应力的后牙洞修复体的使用寿命进行了调查,并评估了临床失败的可能原因。主要回顾了自1990年以来的牙科文献,以查找关于后牙修复体的纵向对照临床研究和回顾性横断面研究。仅纳入了调查恒牙修复体临床性能的研究。确定了I类和II类洞型中银汞合金、直接复合树脂修复体、复合体、玻璃离子体及其衍生产品、复合树脂和陶瓷嵌体以及铸造金修复体的使用寿命和年失败率。承受应力的后牙洞型的平均(标准差)年失败率为:银汞合金修复体3.0%(1.9),直接复合树脂2.2%(2.0),带嵌体的直接复合树脂3.6%(4.2),复合体修复体1.1%(1.2),常规玻璃离子体修复体7.2%(5.6),隧道玻璃离子体7.1%(2.8),非创伤性修复治疗(ART)玻璃离子体6.0%(4.6),复合树脂嵌体2.9%(2.6),陶瓷修复体1.9%(1.8),计算机辅助设计/计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)陶瓷修复体1.7%(1.6),铸造金嵌体和高嵌体为1.4%(1.4)。1990年以后发表的文献显示出更好的结果。间接修复体的平均年失败率显著低于直接修复技术(p=0.0031)。牙齿修复体的使用寿命取决于许多不同因素,包括材料、与患者和牙医相关的因素。失败的主要原因是继发龋、折断、边缘缺陷、磨损和术后敏感。我们需要学会区分导致早期失败的原因和那些在使用数年之后导致修复体丧失的原因。