Bömicke Wolfgang, Rathmann Friederike, Rammelsberg Peter, Zenthöfer Andreas
Department of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
J Dent. 2025 Aug;159:105807. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105807. Epub 2025 May 6.
The objective of this prospective clinical study was to compare the 3-year clinical outcome of 3-unit fixed-fixed zirconia resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPDs) with two different retainer designs placed in the posterior region.
Thirty patients with a single missing second premolar, first, or second molar were randomly assigned to receive either an inlay-retained (IR) (n = 15, mean age 56.4 years, 66.7% male) or a wing-retained (WR) RBFPD (n = 15, mean age 45.9 years, 46.7% male) made of monolithic zirconia (Cercon ht, DeguDent). The restorations primarily replaced first molars and were cemented using a self-etching resin cement (ED Primer + Panavia 21, Kuraray) after tribochemical silica coating (Rocatec, 3M ESPE) and silanization (Clearfil Ceramic Primer, Kuraray). Follow-ups were conducted at 1 week, 3 and 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years. Failure-free and intervention-free survival (success) probabilities were assessed using Kaplan-Meier statistics and log-rank tests; FDI criteria scores were compared using Fisher's exact test (α = 0.05).
Twenty-eight patients completed the 3-year follow-up. One patient with an intact IR RBFPD withdrew for health reasons, and 1 WR RBFPD failed due to unilateral debonding at 3 months. At 3 years, failure-free survival was 100% for IR and 93.3% for WR RBFPDs (P = 0.317). Success was 72.7% for IR and 86.7% for WR RBFPDs (P = 0.379), with no significant differences in FDI scores (P ≥ 0.098).
No short-term difference was found in the survival and success rates of monolithic zirconia RBFPDs for minimally invasive restoration of missing posterior teeth, whether retained by inlays or wings. (clinicaltrials.gov registration no.: NCT01997710) CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Monolithic zirconia RBFPDs retained by either inlays or wings appear to be a viable option for the esthetic and functional, albeit minimally invasive, restoration of missing posterior teeth in patients with abutment teeth are largely defect-free, with the wing retainer being preferred over the inlay retainer in intact teeth because it is less invasive.
本前瞻性临床研究的目的是比较两种不同固位体设计的3单位固定-固定氧化锆树脂粘结固定局部义齿(RBFPD)修复后牙区3年的临床效果。
30例单颗第二前磨牙、第一磨牙或第二磨牙缺失的患者被随机分配,分别接受嵌体固位(IR)(n = 15,平均年龄56.4岁,男性占66.7%)或翼板固位(WR)的RBFPD修复(n = 15,平均年龄45.9岁,男性占46.7%),修复体均采用整体式氧化锆(Cercon ht,DeguDent)制作。修复体主要用于替换第一磨牙,在进行摩擦化学硅涂层处理(Rocatec,3M ESPE)和硅烷化处理(Clearfil Ceramic Primer,可乐丽)后,使用自酸蚀树脂水门汀(ED Primer + Panavia 21,可乐丽)粘结。分别在术后1周、3个月、6个月以及1年、2年和3年进行随访。采用Kaplan-Meier统计方法和对数秩检验评估无失败和无干预的生存率(成功率);使用Fisher精确检验比较FDI标准评分(α = 0.05)。
28例患者完成了3年随访。1例IR RBFPD修复体完好的患者因健康原因退出研究,1例WR RBFPD修复体在3个月时因单侧脱粘而失败。3年后,IR RBFPD修复体的无失败生存率为100%,WR RBFPD修复体为93.3%(P = 0.317)。IR RBFPD修复体的成功率为72.7%,WR RBFPD修复体为86.7%(P = 0.379),FDI评分无显著差异(P≥0.098)。
对于后牙缺失的微创修复,无论是采用嵌体固位还是翼板固位,整体式氧化锆RBFPD修复体的生存率和成功率在短期内均无差异。(临床试验.gov注册号:NCT01997710)临床意义:对于基牙基本无缺损的患者,嵌体或翼板固位的整体式氧化锆RBFPD修复体在美观和功能方面,即使是微创修复后牙缺失似乎都是一种可行的选择,由于翼板固位对牙齿的侵入性较小,因此在完整牙齿中,翼板固位比嵌体固位更受青睐。