一项回顾性对比研究，比较了使用种植体支持的、树脂粘结的和传统固定义齿修复单个有界无牙间隙时，临近活髓牙的存活率。

A retrospective comparison of the survival of vital teeth adjacent to single, bounded edentulous spaces rehabilitated using implant-supported, resin-bonded, and conventional fixed dental prostheses.

机构信息

Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Regenerative Medicine, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Japan.

出版信息

J Dent. 2022 Jan;116:103911. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103911. Epub 2021 Dec 3.

DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103911

PMID:34864137

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In this study, we aimed to compare the long-term survival of vital teeth adjacent to bounded edentulous spaces rehabilitated using an implant-supported prosthesis (ISP), a resin-bonded fixed partial denture (RBFPD), or a conventional fixed partial denture (CFPD). The risk factors for complications in teeth adjacent to the edentulous space (TAES) were also investigated.

METHODS

We followed-up a consecutive series of 514 patients who underwent rehabilitation of a single bounded edentulous space with vital TAES (ISP: 103; RBFPD: 216; and CFPD: 195) from 2008 to 2017. Cumulative survival rates of prosthesis and TAES, and complication-free rates of TAES, were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test. Risk factors were evaluated using a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Cumulative complication-free rates of TAES showed no significant differences among the three groups. The cumulative survival rate of TAES in CFPD was significantly lower than that of ISP (p = 0.037); no significant differences were observed between ISP and RBFPD (p = 0.513), and RBFPD and CFPD (p = 0.076). Older age (p = 0.027) was the only independent significant risk factor for complications in TAES. Installation of CFPD (p = 0.019), ceramic prosthesis in edentulous space (p = 0.026), and deeper periodontal probing depth (p = 0.018) of TAES were significant risk factors for non-surviving TAES.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitating a single bounded edentulous space with CFPD could increase the risk for TAES loss compared with ISP. Risk of TAES loss remained similar between ISP and RBFPD, which can minimize the loss of coronal tooth structure during tooth preparation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Teeth adjacent to edentulous space show equivalent longevity when rehabilitating a single bounded edentulous space with resin-bonded fixed partial dentures or single standing implant-supported prosthesis, at least 10 years post-installation.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在比较使用种植体支持修复体（ISP）、树脂粘结固定局部义齿（RBFPD）或传统固定局部义齿（CFPD）修复有活力的邻接无牙间隙的牙齿的长期存活率。还研究了无牙间隙邻牙（TAES）并发症的危险因素。

方法

我们对 2008 年至 2017 年期间接受单个有活力的邻接无牙间隙（ISP：103 例；RBFPD：216 例；CFPD：195 例）修复的连续系列 514 例患者进行了随访。使用 Kaplan-Meier 分析和对数秩检验评估修复体和 TAES 的累积存活率以及 TAES 的无并发症率。使用 Cox 比例风险模型评估危险因素。

结果

三组 TAES 的无并发症累积率无显著差异。CFPD 中 TAES 的累积存活率明显低于 ISP（p=0.037）；ISP 与 RBFPD（p=0.513）之间无显著差异，RBFPD 与 CFPD（p=0.076）之间也无显著差异。年龄较大（p=0.027）是 TAES 并发症的唯一独立显著危险因素。CFPD 的安装（p=0.019）、无牙间隙的陶瓷修复体（p=0.026）和 TAES 的较深牙周探诊深度（p=0.018）是 TAES 失存的显著危险因素。