背景:更换前牙有不同的治疗选择,作为种植体支持的单冠(ISSC)和树脂粘合固定假牙(RBFDP)都是广泛的治疗选择,知道哪种治疗方式可以被认为是优越的,具有临床意义。
目的:这项比较研究的目的是评估与种植体支持的单冠相比,牙齿支持的树脂粘合固定牙修复的3年和5年生存率和失败率。零假设是生存率没有显着差异,RBFDP和ISSCs之间并发症的发生或患者报告的结果。
方法:本研究包括27例上颌骨或下颌骨前部牙齿发育不全的年轻患者(试验组)和28例对照组的45例树脂粘合的FDP。对所有患者和治疗进行基线和3或5年检查。所有患者都必须在基线和3年或5年检查时填写口腔健康影响概况(OHIP-49)问卷。根据哥本哈根指数评分(CIS)对修复体进行评估。
结果:对于RBFDP(测试)组,生存率为82%,失败率为18%,也就是说,4个RBFDPs在3年后未在原位,4个RBFDPs在5年后未在原位.相应地,ISSC的存活率为98%,失败率为2%,也就是说,只有一个失败(陶瓷断裂)后3年和5年后没有。在82%的原位RBFDP中,78%的病例没有并发症,而22%的患者在3年(4例并发症)和5年(4例并发症)后出现并发症。有92%的ISSCs没有任何并发症和8%(即,3个ISSCs)在3或5年后出现并发症。总的来说,OHIP-49的分数明显下降,例如,两种治疗方案都能改善口腔健康生活质量。
结论:这项研究的结果表明,与RBFDP相比,ISSCs具有更低的并发症和失败率。总的来说,无论使用RBFDP还是ISSC,OHIP评分均显著降低.
BACKGROUND: Different treatment options exist for replacement of an anterior tooth, and as implant-supported single crowns (ISSC) and resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDPs) both are widespread treatment options, it is of clinical relevance to know which treatment modality can be considered superior.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this comparative study was to evaluate the 3- and 5-year survival and failure rate of tooth-supported resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis compared to implant-supported single crowns. The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in survival rate, occurrence of complications or patient-reported outcome between RBFDPs and ISSCs.
METHODS: A total of 45 resin-bonded FDPs were inserted in 27 young patients (test group) with tooth agenesis in the anterior part of the maxilla or mandible and a control group of 28 patients also with tooth agenesis in the anterior region but treated with 40 implant-supported single crowns were included in this study. All patients and treatments were followed with a baseline and a 3- or 5-year examination. All patients had to fill out an Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-49) questionnaire at baseline and at the 3- or 5-year examination. The restorations were evaluated according to the Copenhagen Index Score (CIS).
RESULTS: For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate, that is, four RBFDPs were not in situ after 3 years and four RBFDPs were not in situ after 5 years. Correspondingly, the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%, that is, only one failure (ceramic fracture) after 3 and none after 5 years. Of the 82% RBFDPs in situ, there were no complications in 78% of the cases, whereas 22% had complications after 3 (4 complications) and 5 years (4 complications). There were 92% of the ISSCs without any complications and 8% (ie, 3 ISSCs) with complications after 3 or 5 years. In general, there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores, for example, an improved oral health quality of life for both treatment options.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs. In general, the OHIP-scores were significantly reduced regardless of whether RBFDPs or ISSC were used.