Sobczak Barbara, Majewski Piotr, Egorenkov Evgenii
Dr Sobczak Klinika Radość, Warsaw, Poland.
Dental Institute Medical Faculty, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025 Feb;27(1):e13418. doi: 10.1111/cid.13418. Epub 2024 Nov 26.
To evaluate and compare the survival rates of 3D-printed and chairside milled resin polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) immediate temporary provisional full-arch implant restorations using prosthetic survival as the primary outcome.
Records of 335 routine patients receiving 443 temporary six-implant retained maxillary or mandibular prosthetic restorations between January 2019 and January 2022 at a private clinic (Dr Sobczak Clinical Centre, Radosc, Poland) were considered for this retrospective analysis. The analysis compared prosthetic and implant failure rates between printed and milled restorations as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Patient-related and treatment-related characteristics between groups were compared using the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U-test, respectively. Group-specific cumulative prosthetic survival was qualitatively and quantitively compared using Kaplan-Meier, generalized linear mixed models and univariate cox proportional hazard analyses. Prosthetic survival was set into context to implant survival using Chi-square tests. A multivariable cox proportional hazards model with frailty was used to identify confounding factors affecting prosthetic survival.
Prosthetic failure rates of milled and printed temporary restorations were 13.01% and 11.25% over the average follow-up period of 307.7 ± 115.5 days, respectively. The corresponding 180-day cumulative prosthetic survival rates were 92.4% and 93%. Hazard ratios for the prosthetic failure of milled and printed restorations did not show a statistical difference (p = 0.794). Implant failure rates in restorations that experienced prosthetic failure (17.31%) were higher compared to restorations without failures (5.63%), with a 3.2 times significantly higher odds of failure for a prosthesis experiencing implant loss (p = 0.003). Gender, presence of teeth at treatment baseline, smoking, and bone augmentation were identified as confounding factors impacting prosthetic survival.
Chairside 3D-printed restorations may represent an equivalent treatment modality to established chairside milled restorations for immediate full-arch therapy. Provisional prosthetic survival may impact implant survival and treatment success.
以修复体生存率作为主要指标，评估并比较3D打印和椅旁铣削树脂聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）即刻临时全牙弓种植修复体的生存率。
对2019年1月至2022年1月期间在波兰拉多斯科的一家私人诊所（索布扎克博士临床中心）接受443例临时六种植体固位上颌或下颌修复治疗的335例常规患者的记录进行回顾性分析。该分析分别将打印修复体和铣削修复体之间的修复体失败率和种植体失败率作为主要和次要指标进行比较。组间患者相关和治疗相关特征分别采用卡方检验和曼-惠特尼U检验进行比较。使用Kaplan-Meier法、广义线性混合模型和单变量cox比例风险分析对特定组的累积修复体生存率进行定性和定量比较。使用卡方检验将修复体生存率与种植体生存率进行对比分析。采用具有脆弱性的多变量cox比例风险模型来确定影响修复体生存率的混杂因素。
在平均307.7±115.5天的随访期内，铣削和打印临时修复体的修复体失败率分别为13.01%和11.25%。相应的180天累积修复体生存率分别为92.4%和93%。铣削和打印修复体修复失败的风险比未显示出统计学差异（p=0.794）。发生修复体失败的修复体中的种植体失败率（17.31%）高于未发生失败的修复体（5.63%），修复体出现种植体丢失时失败几率显著高出3.2倍（p=0.003）。性别、治疗基线时牙齿的存在情况、吸烟和骨增量被确定为影响修复体生存率的混杂因素。
对于即刻全牙弓治疗，椅旁3D打印修复体可能是与既定的椅旁铣削修复体等效的治疗方式。临时修复体的生存率可能影响种植体生存率和治疗成功率。
