Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, 96015560, RS, Brazil.
Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, Department of Dentistry, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
J Dent. 2024 Mar;142:104837. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104837. Epub 2024 Jan 9.
This study aimed to compare the success and survival rates of metal-ceramic crowns and composite resin restorations applied in root filled teeth that received a glass fiber post.
A prospective, randomized controlled trial, with equivalent parallel groups was designed. Eighty-two teeth were randomly allocated to the metal-ceramic or composite resin groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis with shared frailty for patients and Kaplan-Meier curves were performed using success and survival rates (p<0.05).
Seventy-five post-retained restorations (34 metal-ceramic crowns and 41 composite restorations) in 62 patients were analyzed. The median follow-up was 8.1 years [IQR 4.0-9.9]. Twenty-seven failures were observed. Twenty-two failures (81.5 %) were observed in the composite resin group, of which six (27.3 %) were not repairable. Five failures (18.5 %) were observed in the metal-ceramic crown group, of which three (66.6 %) were non-repairable. The cumulative success rate at 8 years was 85.0 % for crowns (AFR=1.31 %) and 43.2 % for composite resins (AFR=6.58 %), while the survival rate was 93.8 % for crowns (AFR=0.52 %) and 97.6 % for composite resins (AFR=0.20 %). Considering the success rates, adjusted multivariate Cox regression showed that composite resin had a Hazard Ratio of 5.07 (95 %CI, 1.99-12.89) greater than the metal-ceramic crown. No significant difference in the failure risk was observed when the survival rates were considered (HR=0.38, 95 %CI (0.10 - 1.44), p = 0.156). Co-variables did not affect the success and survival rates (p>0.05).
Metal-ceramic crowns showed a higher success rate than composite restorations. The survival rates were similar, but composite restorations presented a higher need for repairs.
Post-retained composite restorations may need more reinterventions during the lifecycle, although more preservation of sound tooth structure is expected with a large restoration of resin post-and-core. These aspects have to be discussed with the patient for decision-making planning.
本研究旨在比较玻璃纤维桩修复的根管治疗后牙齿中应用金属陶瓷冠和复合树脂修复的成功率和存活率。
设计了一项前瞻性、随机对照试验,采用等效平行组。82 颗牙齿随机分配到金属陶瓷组或复合树脂组。使用成功和存活率(p<0.05)进行多变量 Cox 回归分析和共享脆弱性以及 Kaplan-Meier 曲线。
62 名患者中有 75 颗带桩修复的牙(34 颗金属陶瓷冠和 41 颗复合修复体)进行了分析。中位随访时间为 8.1 年[IQR 4.0-9.9]。观察到 27 例失败。复合树脂组观察到 22 例失败(81.5%),其中 6 例(27.3%)不可修复。金属陶瓷冠组观察到 5 例失败(18.5%),其中 3 例(66.6%)不可修复。8 年时,冠的累积成功率为 85.0%(AFR=1.31%),复合树脂为 43.2%(AFR=6.58%),而冠的存活率为 93.8%(AFR=0.52%),复合树脂为 97.6%(AFR=0.20%)。考虑到成功率,调整后的多变量 Cox 回归显示,复合树脂的风险比为 5.07(95%CI,1.99-12.89),高于金属陶瓷冠。当考虑存活率时,失败风险无显著差异(HR=0.38,95%CI(0.10-1.44),p=0.156)。协变量对成功率和存活率无影响(p>0.05)。
金属陶瓷冠的成功率高于复合修复体。存活率相似,但复合修复体需要更多的修复。
尽管树脂桩核大修复体预计更能保留健康牙体结构,但玻璃纤维桩修复后的复合修复体在其生命周期中可能需要更多的干预。在决策规划时需要与患者讨论这些方面。