Kinsel Richard P, Lin Dongming
Health Sciences Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences; private practice, Foster City, CA, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Jun;101(6):388-94. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60083-4.
Porcelain fracture associated with an implant-supported, metal ceramic crown or fixed partial denture occurs at a higher rate than in tooth-supported restorations, according to the literature. Implant-specific and patient-specific causes of ceramic failure have not been fully evaluated.
The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the potential statistical predictors for porcelain fracture of implant-supported, metal ceramic restorations.
Over a 6-month period, a consecutive series of patients having previously received implant-supported, metal ceramic fixed restorations were examined during periodic recall appointments. The number of supporting implants, number of dental units, type of restoration, date of prosthesis insertion, location in the dental arch, opposing dentition, type of occlusion, presence of parafunctional habits, use of an occlusal protective device, presence or absence of ceramic fractures, gender, and age were recorded for each patient. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach was used for the intrasubject correlated measurements analysis of categorical outcomes (presence or absence of ceramic fractures) to determine which patient- and implant-specific factors would predict porcelain fracture (alpha=.05).
Data were collected from 152 patients representing 998 dental units (390 single crowns and 94 fixed partial dentures) supported by 729 implants. Porcelain fractures of 94 dental units occurred in 35 patients. The fractures were significantly (P<.05) associated with opposing implant-supported metal ceramic restorations, bruxism, and not wearing a protective occlusal device. Metal ceramic prostheses (single crown or fixed partial dentures) had approximately 7 times higher odds of porcelain fracture (odds ratio (OR)=7.06; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.57 to 19.37) and 13 times greater odds of a fracture requiring either repair or replacement (OR=13.95; 95% CI: 2.25 to 86.41) when in occlusion with another implant-supported restoration, as compared to opposing a natural tooth. In addition, patients exhibiting bruxism or not wearing an occlusal device had approximately 7 times higher odds (OR=7.23; 95% CI: 3.86 to 13.54), and 2 times higher odds (OR=1.92; 95% CI: 1.01 to 3.67) of porcelain fracture when compared to patients without bruxism and patients not wearing an occlusal device.
Implant-supported metal ceramic single crowns and fixed partial dentures were found to have a significantly higher risk of porcelain fracture in patients with bruxism habits, when a protective occlusal device was not used, and when the restoration opposed another implant-supported metal ceramic restoration.
根据文献,种植体支持的金属烤瓷冠或固定局部义齿相关的瓷裂发生率高于牙支持修复体。种植体特异性和患者特异性的陶瓷失败原因尚未得到充分评估。
本回顾性研究的目的是评估种植体支持的金属陶瓷修复体瓷裂的潜在统计预测因素。
在6个月的时间里,对一系列此前接受过种植体支持的金属陶瓷固定修复体的患者进行定期召回检查。记录每位患者的种植体数量、牙单位数量、修复体类型、义齿植入日期、牙弓位置、对颌牙列、咬合类型、有无异常功能习惯、是否使用咬合保护装置、有无瓷裂、性别和年龄。采用广义估计方程(GEE)方法对分类结果(有无瓷裂)进行个体内相关测量分析,以确定哪些患者特异性和种植体特异性因素可预测瓷裂(α = 0.05)。
收集了152例患者的数据,这些患者代表了由729颗种植体支持的998个牙单位(390个单冠和94个固定局部义齿)。35例患者的94个牙单位发生了瓷裂。这些骨折与对颌种植体支持的金属陶瓷修复体、磨牙症以及未佩戴保护咬合装置显著相关(P < 0.05)。与对颌天然牙相比,当金属陶瓷假体(单冠或固定局部义齿)与另一个种植体支持的修复体咬合时,瓷裂的几率大约高7倍(优势比(OR)= 7.06;95%置信区间(CI):2.57至19.37),骨折需要修复或更换的几率高13倍(OR = 13.95;95% CI:2.25至86.41)。此外,与无磨牙症且未佩戴咬合装置的患者相比,有磨牙症或未佩戴咬合装置的患者瓷裂的几率大约高7倍(OR = 7.23;95% CI:3.86至13.54),高2倍(OR = 1.92;95% CI:1.01至3.67)。
发现对于有磨牙症习惯、未使用保护咬合装置以及修复体与另一个种植体支持的金属陶瓷修复体对颌的患者,种植体支持的金属陶瓷单冠和固定局部义齿发生瓷裂的风险显著更高。