Creugers N H, De Kanter R J, van 't Hof M A
TRIKON, Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Dent. 1997 May-Jul;25(3-4):239-42. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00033-4.
A clinical trial, involving 203 resin-bonded bridges (RBBs) was undertaken to investigate the influence of retainer-type and luting material on the survival of these restorations.
For this evaluation, 157 patients were available (14% of the original sample was lost to follow-up or excluded from the study following the stopping criteria). Fifty per cent of the patients were questioned concerning the fate of the RBBs and 59% of questioned patients were examined clinically. The patients that were seen for examination were representatives of the experimental groups. The findings from the clinical examination were compared with the data obtained from the questionnaire. Missing data were censored at the date of the last available information. Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated to assess the survivals at the endpoints and compared using Cox's proportional hazards procedure.
A significant difference was found between perforated (P-type) and etched (E-type) RBBs (P = 0.05) for original bonded restorations but not when rebonded RBBs were taken into account. The results of the survival analysis were: anterior P-type, 49 +/- 7% after 10.5 years: anterior E-type, 57 +/- 7% after 10.5 years; posterior P-type, 18 +/- 11% after 6.8 years; posterior E-type, 37 +/- 13% after 10.2 years. Survivals of RBBs that were rebonded once during the evaluation period were 62 +/- 9% (11.0 years) for anterior RBBs and 51 +/- 11% (10.2 years) for posterior RBBs.
The factor location (anterior versus posterior) was as in previous analyses, highly significant. Differences in survival between cementation materials were not significant.
开展一项涉及203个树脂粘结桥（RBBs）的临床试验，以研究固位体类型和粘结材料对这些修复体存留率的影响。
为进行此项评估，共有157名患者可供研究（原始样本的14%因失访或不符合终止标准而被排除在研究之外）。50%的患者被询问了RBBs的情况，59%被询问的患者接受了临床检查。接受检查的患者是各实验组的代表。将临床检查结果与问卷调查获得的数据进行比较。缺失数据在最后一次可获得信息的日期进行截尾处理。计算Kaplan-Meier估计值以评估终点时的存留率，并使用Cox比例风险程序进行比较。
对于原始粘结修复体，穿孔型（P型）和酸蚀型（E型）RBBs之间存在显著差异（P = 0.05），但在考虑重新粘结的RBBs时则无显著差异。存留率分析结果如下：前牙P型，10.5年后为49±7%；前牙E型，10.5年后为57±7%；后牙P型，6.8年后为18±11%；后牙E型，10.2年后为37±13%。在评估期间重新粘结一次的RBBs的存留率，前牙RBBs为62±9%（11.0年），后牙RBBs为51±11%（10.2年）。
与之前的分析一样，位置因素（前牙与后牙）具有高度显著性。粘结材料之间的存留率差异不显著。
