De Kanter R J, Creugers N H, Verzijden C W, Van't Hof M A
Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Dental School, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Dent Res. 1998 Apr;77(4):609-14. doi: 10.1177/00220345980770041401.
Previous clinical observations have revealed that resin-bonded bridges for posterior tooth replacements are less retentive than anterior resin-bonded bridges. Improved bonding procedures and preparation designs, however, may have a positive effect on the functional durability of these restorations. The present study reports the final analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial in which different designs of posterior resin-bonded bridges were evaluated for a period of at least 5 years. The operational hypothesis was that the bonding system and the preparation design used in posterior resin-bonded bridges have an influence on the survival and clinical functioning of these restorations. Survival in this study was defined at two levels: (1) 'complete' survival (survival without any debonding), and (2) 'functional' survival (survival including loss of retention on one occasion and successful rebonding of the original RBB without further debonding). With regard to 'complete' survival, no significant differences were found between the bonding systems used for adherence of the restorations to abutment teeth (etching/Clearfil F2, sandblasting/Panavia EX, and silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C). The variable 'preparation form' (conventional preparation form vs. modified preparation form) for complete survival was statistically in favor of the modified preparation form (62% vs. 46%), but did not influence the functional survival. With regard to 'functional' survival, the combination of silica coating and Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other bonding systems (90% survival vs. 72% and 75%, p < 0.01). Factor location was found to be highly significant for both survival levels [Cox's PH model, p = 0.0002 (Cox, 1972)]: The five-year 'complete' survival rates were 65% for maxillary restorations and 40% for mandibular restorations, while the five-year 'functional' survival rates were 89% and 68%, respectively. It is concluded that preparation of grooves in abutment teeth for posterior resin-bonded bridges is beneficial to their chance of survival. Resin-bonded bridges placed in the maxilla have a better prognosis than those made in the mandible. The bonding systems used in this study appear to have no influence on the chance of failure. In rebonded posterior resin-bonded bridges, the bonding system silica-coating/Microfill Pontic C was more retentive than the other systems tested.
以往的临床观察表明,用于后牙修复的树脂粘结桥的固位力比前牙树脂粘结桥弱。然而,改进的粘结程序和预备设计可能会对这些修复体的功能耐久性产生积极影响。本研究报告了一项随机对照临床试验的最终分析结果,该试验对不同设计的后牙树脂粘结桥进行了至少5年的评估。操作假设是,后牙树脂粘结桥中使用的粘结系统和预备设计会影响这些修复体的存留率和临床功能。本研究中的存留率定义为两个水平:(1)“完全”存留(无任何脱粘的存留),以及(2)“功能”存留(包括一次固位丧失且原树脂粘结桥成功重新粘结且无进一步脱粘的存留)。关于“完全”存留率,在用于将修复体粘结到基牙上的粘结系统(酸蚀/Clearfil F2、喷砂/Panavia EX和硅涂层/Microfill Pontic C)之间未发现显著差异。对于“完全”存留率,变量“预备形式”(传统预备形式与改良预备形式)在统计学上有利于改良预备形式(62%对46%),但不影响功能存留率。关于“功能”存留率,硅涂层和Microfill Pontic C的组合比其他粘结系统的固位力更强(存留率90%对72%和75%,p<0.01)。发现因素位置对两个存留水平均具有高度显著性[Cox比例风险模型,p = 0.0002(Cox,1972)]:上颌修复体的五年“完全”存留率为65% , 下颌修复体为40%,而五年“功能”存留率分别为89%和68%。得出的结论是,为后牙树脂粘结桥在基牙上制备沟对其存留几率有益。上颌的树脂粘结桥比下颌的预后更好。本研究中使用的粘结系统似乎对失败几率没有影响。在重新粘结的后牙树脂粘结桥中,硅涂层/Microfill Pontic C粘结系统比其他测试系统的固位力更强。