University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Prosthodontics and Special Dental Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Dent Mater. 2023 Apr;39(4):383-390. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.03.004. Epub 2023 Mar 21.
The objective is to evaluate the long-term clinical survival and performance of direct and indirect resin composite restorations replacing cusps in vital upper premolars.
Between 2001 and 2007, 176 upper premolars in 157 patients were restored with 92 direct and 84 indirect resin composite restorations as part of an RCT. Inclusion criteria were fracture of the buccal or palatal cusp of vital upper premolars along with a class II cavity or restoration in the same tooth.
Forty patients having 23 direct and 22 indirect composite restorations respectively, were lost to follow-up (25.6%). The cumulative Kaplan-Meier survival rates were 63.6% (mean observation time: 15.3 years, SE 5.6%) with an AFR of 2.4% for direct restorations and 54.5% (mean observation time: 13.9 years, SE: 6.4%) with an AFR of 3.3% for indirect restorations. The Cox regression analysis revealed a statistically significant influence of the patient's age at placement on the survival of the restoration (HR 1.036, p = 0.024), the variables gender, type of upper premolar, type of restoration, and which cusp involved in the restoration had no statistically significant influence. Direct composite restorations failed predominantly due to tooth fracture, indirect restorations primarily by adhesive failure (p < 0.05).
There was no statistically significant difference in survival rates between direct and indirect composite cusp-replacing restorations. Both direct and indirect resin composite cusp-replacing restorations are suitable options to restore compromised premolars. The longer treatment time and higher costs for the indirect restoration argue in favor of the direct technique.
评估直接和间接树脂复合修复体替代活髓上前磨牙牙尖的长期临床存活率和功能表现。
2001 年至 2007 年间,157 名患者的 176 颗上颌前磨牙接受了 92 颗直接和 84 颗间接树脂复合修复体修复,这是一项 RCT 的一部分。纳入标准为活髓上前磨牙颊侧或腭侧牙尖折断,同时同一牙有 II 类洞或修复体。
40 名患者(分别有 23 颗直接和 22 颗间接复合修复体)失访(25.6%)。累积 Kaplan-Meier 生存率分别为直接修复体 63.6%(平均观察时间:15.3 年,SE 5.6%),AFR 为 2.4%;间接修复体 54.5%(平均观察时间:13.9 年,SE:6.4%),AFR 为 3.3%。Cox 回归分析显示,患者放置时的年龄对修复体的存活率有统计学上的显著影响(HR 1.036,p=0.024),性别、上颌前磨牙类型、修复类型以及涉及修复的牙尖等变量无统计学显著影响。直接复合修复体主要因牙折失败,间接修复体主要因粘结失败失败(p<0.05)。
直接和间接复合牙尖替换修复体的存活率无统计学显著差异。直接和间接树脂复合牙尖替换修复体均是修复受损前磨牙的合适选择。间接修复的治疗时间更长,成本更高,这有利于直接技术。