Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, RWTH Aachen University, Pauwelsstrasse 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Private Practice, Norden, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jul;21(6):2123-2131. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-2002-1. Epub 2016 Nov 10.
The aim of this retrospective, non-interventional clinical study was to analyze factors influencing the survival of restorative treatments of active cervical (root) caries lesions (aCCLs) and the success of non-invasive treatment options of inactive cervical (root) caries lesions (iCCLs).
Records from patients who visited a single private practice regularly were searched for the presence of solely buccal CCLs. Data from 345 aCCLs and 232 iCCLs being detected at least 6 months before the last recall visit in 295 patients were recorded. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to analyze time to failure in both groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate the association between clinical factors and time until failure.
Within 120 months, 20 aCCLs had received a second restorative follow-up treatment. For iCCLs, 35 lesions had to be restored within 120 months. Median survival/success time was 111 months for aCCLs (annual failure rate 1.7%) and 120 months for iCCLs (annual "restoration" rate 4.3%). In multivariate Cox regression, active and inactive CCLs being checked up more than twice a year showed significantly higher failure/restoration rates than CCLs being checked up less than twice a year (p < 0.001).
Low failure/restoration rates could be found for both treatment strategies for CCLs, and only the "number of check-ups per year" was significantly positively associated with failures.
Caries monitoring is a viable way to manage CCLs. However, individual check-up interval should be defined carefully, since higher rate of check-ups seems to lead to increased intervention rates in the management of CCLs. The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS-ID: DRKS00010003).
本回顾性、非干预性临床研究旨在分析影响活跃性颈(根)龋损(aCCL)修复治疗存活率和非活动性颈(根)龋损(iCCL)非侵入性治疗方案成功率的因素。
检索一家私人诊所定期就诊患者的记录,以寻找单纯颊侧 CCL 的存在。记录了 295 名患者中至少在最后一次随访前 6 个月发现的 345 例 aCCL 和 232 例 iCCL 的数据。使用 Kaplan-Meier 分析评估两组的失败时间。使用 Cox 比例风险模型评估临床因素与失败时间之间的关联。
在 120 个月内,20 例 aCCL 接受了第二次修复随访治疗。对于 iCCL,在 120 个月内有 35 个病变需要修复。aCCL 的中位生存/成功率为 111 个月(年失败率为 1.7%),iCCL 为 120 个月(年“修复”率为 4.3%)。在多变量 Cox 回归中,每年检查多于两次的活跃性和非活跃性 CCL 显示出明显高于每年检查少于两次的 CCL 的失败/修复率(p<0.001)。
对于 CCL 的两种治疗策略,都可以发现低的失败/修复率,并且只有“每年检查次数”与失败显著正相关。
龋病监测是管理 CCL 的一种可行方法。然而,由于更高的检查频率似乎会导致 CCL 管理中干预率的增加,因此应仔细定义个体检查间隔。该研究在德国临床试验注册处(DRKS-ID:DRKS00010003)注册。