Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry and Epidemiology (IBE), Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Sep;30(5):597-606. doi: 10.1111/ipd.12636. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
There is little information available on the longevity of non-invasive glass ionomer cement (GIC) and composite restorations as well as conventional composite and ceramic restorations placed on permanent teeth with enamel breakdowns due to molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH).
To compare the longevity of the abovementioned treatment procedures.
Of 377 identified MIH patients, 118 individuals received restorative treatment and were invited for clinical examination, including caries and MIH status. Finally, survival data from 204 MIH-related restorations placed on 127 teeth were retrospectively collected from 52 children, monitored between 2010 and 2018. Descriptive and explorative analyses were performed, including Kaplan-Meier estimators and the Cox regression model.
The mean patient observation time was 42.9 months (SD = 35.1). The cumulative survival probabilities after 36 months-7.0% (GIC, N = 28), 29.9% (non-invasive composite restoration, N = 126), 76.2% (conventional composite restoration, N = 27) and 100.0% (ceramic restoration, N = 23)-differed significantly in the regression analysis.
Conventional restorations were associated with moderate-to-high survival rates in MIH teeth. In contrast, non-invasive composite restorations, which were predominately used in younger or less cooperative children, were linked to lower survival rates.
由于磨牙-前磨牙低矿化（MIH）导致釉质破裂，对于永久性牙齿上的非侵入性玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）和复合修复体以及传统复合和陶瓷修复体的长期效果，相关信息很少。
比较上述治疗方法的长期效果。
在 377 名确诊为 MIH 的患者中，有 118 名接受了修复治疗，并邀请他们进行临床检查，包括龋齿和 MIH 状况。最后，从 52 名儿童中回顾性地收集了 204 个与 MIH 相关的修复体的数据，这些修复体分别放置在 127 颗牙齿上，从 2010 年至 2018 年进行监测。进行了描述性和探索性分析，包括 Kaplan-Meier 估计和 Cox 回归模型。
患者平均观察时间为 42.9 个月（SD=35.1）。36 个月时的累积生存率分别为：GIC（n=28）7.0%、非侵入性复合修复体（n=126）29.9%、传统复合修复体（n=27）76.2%和陶瓷修复体（n=23）100.0%，在回归分析中差异具有统计学意义。
在 MIH 牙齿中，传统修复体与中高度的生存率相关。相比之下，非侵入性复合修复体主要用于年龄较小或合作性较差的儿童，与较低的生存率相关。
