Berekally T L, Smales R J
Adelaide Dental Hospital.
Aust Dent J. 1993 Apr;38(2):85-96. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1993.tb05468.x.
The clinical performance of resin-bonded Rochette and Maryland bridges inserted by various operators at the Adelaide Dental Hospital is reported. Thirty-four Rochette bridges (30 anterior, 4 posterior) and 228 Maryland bridges (150 anterior, 78 posterior) were assessed. Clinical data were compiled on types of bridge failure, factors influencing bridge retention, and the effects of the prostheses on abutment teeth and supporting tissues. The failure rate for Rochette bridges over 6 years was 75 per cent with a median survival of 2.14 years. Debonding occurred in 70 per cent of bridge failures. The failure rate for Maryland bridges over 5 years was 42 per cent with a median survival of 2.60 years. Pontic fracture (29 per cent) and debonding (20 per cent) were the main failures observed. Porcelain pontics performed significantly better than the processed hybrid resin pontics (P < 0.01). The main reasons for debonding included occlusal stresses, non-retentive bridge designs and resin cement failure. A life-table analysis showed no significant difference in the overall cumulative survival rates between Rochette and Maryland bridges. Bridge design and the choice of pontic material and resin cement emerged as significant factors influencing the success rate of the bridges examined.
本文报告了阿德莱德牙科医院不同操作人员植入的树脂粘结罗切特桥和马里兰桥的临床表现。评估了34例罗切特桥(30例前牙桥,4例后牙桥)和228例马里兰桥(150例前牙桥,78例后牙桥)。收集了关于桥体失败类型、影响桥体固位的因素以及修复体对基牙和支持组织影响的临床数据。罗切特桥6年的失败率为75%,中位生存期为2.14年。70%的桥体失败是由于脱粘。马里兰桥5年的失败率为42%,中位生存期为2.60年。观察到的主要失败原因是桥体折断(29%)和脱粘(20%)。瓷桥体的表现明显优于加工复合树脂桥体(P<0.01)。脱粘的主要原因包括咬合应力、固位不良的桥体设计和树脂粘结剂失效。寿命表分析显示,罗切特桥和马里兰桥的总体累积生存率没有显著差异。桥体设计、桥体材料和树脂粘结剂的选择是影响所检查桥体成功率的重要因素。