Cristea Ioana, Agop-Forna Doriana, Martu Maria-Alexandra, Dascălu Cristina, Topoliceanu Claudiu, Török Roland, Török Bianca, Bardis Dimitrios, Bardi Panagiota Moulavasili, Forna Norina
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi, Universitatii Street 16, 700115 Iasi, Romania.
Implant Institute Török, 1712 Tafers, Switzerland.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Feb 23;13(5):852. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13050852.
The goals of this research are: (1) to compare the survival and prosthetic success of metal-ceramic 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; (2) to evaluate the influence of several risk factors on the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). A total of 68 patients with posterior short edentulous spaces (mean age 61.00 ± 1.325 years), were divided into two groups: 3-unit tooth-supported FPDs (40 patients; 52 FPD; mean follow-up 10.27 ± 0.496 years) and 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (28 patients; 32 FPD; mean follow-up 8.656 ± 0.718 years). Pearson-chi tests were used to highlight the risk factors for the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported FPDs and multivariate analysis was used to determine significant risk predictors for the prosthetic success of the tooth-supported FPDs. The survival rates of 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs were 100% and 87.5%, respectively, while the prosthetic success was 69.25% and 68.75%, respectively. The prosthetic success of tooth-supported FPDs was significantly higher for patients older than 60 years (83.3%) vs. 40-60 years old (57.1%) ( = 0.041). Periodontal disease history decreased the prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs when compared with the absence of periodontal history (45.5% vs. 86.7%, = 0.001; 33.3% vs. 90%, = 0.002). The prosthetic success of 3-unit tooth- vs. implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene in our study. In conclusion, similar rates of prosthetic success were recorded for both types of FPDs. In our study, prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene; however, history of periodontal disease is a significant negative predictor of success in both groups when compared with patients without periodontal history.
（1）比较金属烤瓷3单位牙支持与种植体支持的固定义齿的生存率和修复成功率；（2）评估多种风险因素对牙支持和种植体支持的固定义齿（FPD）修复成功率的影响。共有68例后牙区短牙列缺损患者（平均年龄61.00±1.325岁），分为两组：3单位牙支持的FPD（40例患者；52个FPD；平均随访10.27±0.496年）和3单位种植体支持的FPD（28例患者；32个FPD；平均随访8.656±0.718年）。采用Pearson卡方检验来突出牙支持和种植体支持的FPD修复成功的风险因素，并采用多因素分析来确定牙支持的FPD修复成功的显著风险预测因素。3单位牙支持与种植体支持的FPD的生存率分别为100%和87.5%，而修复成功率分别为69.25%和68.75%。60岁以上患者牙支持的FPD修复成功率（83.3%）显著高于40 - 60岁患者（57.1%）（P = 0.041）。与无牙周病史相比，牙周病史会降低牙支持与种植体支持的FPD的修复成功率（45.5%对86.7%，P = 0.001；33.3%对90%，P = 0.002）。在我们的研究中，3单位牙支持与种植体支持的FPD的修复成功率不受性别、位置、吸烟或口腔卫生的显著影响。总之，两种类型的FPD记录的修复成功率相似。在我们的研究中，牙支持与种植体支持的FPD的修复成功率不受性别、位置、吸烟或口腔卫生的显著影响；然而，与无牙周病史的患者相比，牙周病史是两组成功的显著负性预测因素。
