Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32610-0446, United States.
Dent Mater. 2012 Jan;28(1):102-11. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.09.012.
The recent increase in reports from clinical studies of ceramic chipping has raised the question of which criteria should constitute success or failure of total-ceramic prostheses. Terminologies such as minor chipping [1], partial chipping, technical complications [2,3], and biological complications have crept into the dental terminology and they have complicated our classification of success and failure of these crown and bridge restorations. Some journals have permitted the reporting of fractures as "complications" and they are not necessarily classified as failures in the study. One study has attempted to classify chipping fractures according to their severity and subsequent treatment [4]. This is a promising approach to resolve the challenges to the classification of chipping fracture. The term 'chipping fracture' is more descriptive than 'chipping' since the latter term tends to imply an event of minor consequence. Two types of statistics are reported routinely in these studies, i.e., percent success, which is a measure of restorations that survive without any adverse effects, and percent survival, which is a measure of all restorations that survive even though they may have exhibited chipping fracture or they may have been repaired. Why has this scenario occurred? One possible explanation is that many of these types of fractures are very small and do not affect function or esthetics. Another reason is that corporate sponsors prefer to use the term chipping since it does not connote failure in the sense that the term fracture does. In any event, we need to be more precise in our scientific observations of fracture and classifications of the various types of fracture including details on the location of fracture and the prosthesis design configuration. Because of the lack of standardized methods for describing chipping fractures, materials scientists are unable to properly analyze the effect of material properties and design factors on the time-dependent survival probability of ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Based on the review of clinical trials and systematic reviews of these trials, the present study was designed to develop guidelines for classifying the functional performance, success, survival, and susceptibility to chipping fracture, and subsequent treatment of ceramic and metal-ceramic restorations.
To develop comprehensive descriptive guidelines and a clinical reporting form to assist dental scientists in their analyses of chipping fracture behavior of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic prostheses with particular emphasis on veneered-zirconia restorations. These guidelines are required to optimize the recording of fracture features that can be used to differentiate ceramic chipping fracture from bulk fracture and to assist dentists in identifying subsequent treatment that may minimize the need to replace affected restorations. A recording form for clinical fracture observations must be sufficiently clear and complete so that dental health professionals can translate the most relevant information in a context that allows their patients to fully understand the potential risks and benefits of treatment with ceramic restorations. It should clearly allow a clinician to determine whether or not a ceramic fracture constitutes a failure, which requires replacement of the prosthesis, or whether the fracture surface is relatively small or located in a nonfunctional area, i.e., one that is not contribute to occlusion, esthetics, proximal contacts, or food impaction. To accomplish this task, a review of the relevant publications of clinical trials was necessary to identify the variability in reporting of fracture events. The reviews were focused on clinical research studies of zirconia-based FDPs and PFM FDPs, which had been monitored through recall exams for three years or more. These reports and systematic reviews of all relevant publications were published in English dental journals between 2004 and 2010.The primary focus in this review was on the susceptibility to chipping fracture or bulk fracture of veneered zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and metal-ceramic FDPs, which are also referred to in this paper as porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) FDPs.
最近来自陶瓷碎裂临床研究的报告增多,提出了一个问题,即全陶瓷修复体的成功或失败应采用哪些标准来衡量。诸如轻微碎裂[1]、局部碎裂、技术并发症[2,3]和生物学并发症等术语已经潜入牙科术语中,使我们对这些冠桥修复体的成功和失败的分类变得复杂。一些期刊允许将骨折报告为“并发症”,并且在研究中不一定将其归类为失败。有一项研究试图根据严重程度和后续治疗对碎裂骨折进行分类[4]。这是解决碎裂骨折分类挑战的一种有前途的方法。术语“碎裂骨折”比“碎裂”更具描述性,因为后者往往暗示是轻微后果的事件。这些研究中通常报告两种类型的统计数据,即成功率,这是衡量没有任何不良影响的修复体存活的指标;存活率,这是衡量即使出现碎裂骨折或已修复的所有存活修复体的指标。为什么会出现这种情况?一种可能的解释是,这些类型的骨折中有很多非常小,不会影响功能或美观。另一个原因是,公司赞助商更喜欢使用碎裂这个术语,因为它不像术语骨折那样暗示失败。无论如何,我们需要在对骨折的科学观察和对包括骨折位置和修复体设计配置在内的各种类型骨折的分类方面更加精确。由于缺乏描述碎裂骨折的标准化方法,材料科学家无法正确分析材料性能和设计因素对陶瓷固定义齿(FDP)的时间相关存活概率的影响。基于对临床试验的回顾和对这些试验的系统评价,本研究旨在制定用于分类陶瓷和金属陶瓷修复体的功能性能、成功率、存活率和碎裂骨折易感性以及随后治疗的综合描述性指南。
制定全面的描述性指南和临床报告表格,以协助牙科科学家分析金属陶瓷和全陶瓷修复体的碎裂骨折行为,特别强调饰面氧化锆修复体。需要这些指南来优化记录可用于区分陶瓷碎裂骨折和整体骨折的骨折特征,并帮助牙医确定可能最大限度减少需要更换受影响修复体的后续治疗。临床骨折观察记录表格必须足够清晰和完整,以便牙科保健专业人员能够在患者能够充分理解陶瓷修复体治疗的潜在风险和益处的上下文中翻译最相关的信息。它应该清楚地允许临床医生确定陶瓷骨折是否构成需要更换修复体的失败,或者骨折表面是否相对较小或位于非功能区域,即不会影响咬合、美观、邻接、或食物嵌塞。为了完成这项任务,有必要对临床研究的相关文献进行审查,以确定骨折事件报告的可变性。这些综述主要集中在基于氧化锆的 FDP 和金属烤瓷 FDP 的临床研究上,这些 FDP 已经通过三年或更长时间的召回检查进行了监测。这些报告和所有相关出版物的系统综述都发表在 2004 年至 2010 年期间的英语牙科期刊上。本综述的主要重点是饰面氧化锆基 FDP 和金属陶瓷 FDP(也在本文中称为烤瓷熔附金属(PFM)FDP)的碎裂骨折或整体骨折的易感性。