Kolker Justine L, Damiano Peter C, Caplan Daniel J, Armstrong Steven R, Dawson Deborah V, Jones Michael P, Flach Stephen D, Warren John J, Kuthy Raymond A
Detroit Center for Research on Oral Health Disparities, Department of Cariology, Restorative Sciences and Endodontics, University of Michigan, USA.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Jun;136(6):738-48; quiz 805-6. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0257.
The authors evaluated the factors associated with the receipt of subsequent treatment by teeth restored with a large amalgam restoration or a large amalgam restoration and crown restoration after 10 years.
The authors used retrospective data from the University of Iowa College of Dentistry (Iowa City, Iowa) administrative database and patient records to evaluate patient and tooth factors for their association with the two primary outcomes: receipt of any subsequent treatment and receipt of catastrophic treatment (extraction, endodontic therapy).
The authors followed 518 teeth over a 10-year period (49 percent with large amalgam restorations and 51 percent with crowns). Sixty-four percent of the large amalgam restorations and 32 percent of the crowns received subsequent treatment during the 10 years. In addition to restoration type, the patient's sex, history of grinding teeth and having a broken tooth were related to the tooth's receiving subsequent treatment. Twenty-two percent of large amalgam restorations and 12 percent of crowns received catastrophic treatment with the odds of teeth with large amalgam restorations receiving a catastrophic treatment being 2.1 times the odds of teeth with crowns receiving catastrophic treatment.
Teeth with crowns were less likely to receive any treatment or catastrophic treatment over 10 years than were teeth with large amalgam restorations. Patient and tooth factors also were related to a tooth experiencing subsequent treatment.
Teeth with crowns received less subsequent treatment than teeth with large amalgam restorations. This could be related to both the difference in longevity between the two restorations, as well as how appropriately treatment was planned for each procedure. Cost differences between the two restorations need to be factored into the decision-making process.
作者评估了在10年后，用大型银汞合金修复体或大型银汞合金修复体与冠修复体修复的牙齿接受后续治疗的相关因素。
作者使用了爱荷华大学牙科学院（爱荷华州爱荷华市）行政数据库和患者记录中的回顾性数据，以评估患者和牙齿因素与两个主要结局的关联：接受任何后续治疗和接受灾难性治疗（拔牙、牙髓治疗）。
作者在10年期间跟踪了518颗牙齿（49%为大型银汞合金修复体，51%为冠修复体）。在这10年中，64%的大型银汞合金修复体和32%的冠修复体接受了后续治疗。除修复类型外，患者的性别、磨牙史和牙齿折断与牙齿接受后续治疗有关。22%的大型银汞合金修复体和12%的冠修复体接受了灾难性治疗，大型银汞合金修复体的牙齿接受灾难性治疗的几率是冠修复体牙齿的2.1倍。
与大型银汞合金修复体的牙齿相比，冠修复体的牙齿在10年内接受任何治疗或灾难性治疗的可能性较小。患者和牙齿因素也与牙齿接受后续治疗有关。
冠修复体的牙齿接受的后续治疗比大型银汞合金修复体的牙齿少。这可能与两种修复体的使用寿命差异以及每种治疗程序的计划是否恰当有关。在决策过程中需要考虑两种修复体的成本差异。
