The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

Evaluation of clinical status of fixed prosthesis

고정성 보철물의 임상적 상태에 대한 평가

  • Yun, Mi-Jung (Department of Prosrhodontics, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeon, Young-Chan (Department of Prosrhodontics, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosrhodontics, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 윤미정 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 전영찬 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 정창모 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Published : 2009.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: Restoring and replacing teeth with fixed prostheses commonly used in dental practice. Because of improper oral hygiene care and inaccurate laboratory procedure, complications of fixed prostheses were found in the mouth of patients. Although many efforts have been continually made to obtain the data of long term prognosis of fixed prostheses, it was difficult to do it. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical status of fixed prostheses. Material and methods: In order to assess the clinical status of fixed prostheses, a total of 161 individuals(aged 17-85, 99 women and 62 men with 1596 unit of fixed prostheses, and 1169 abutments) who first visited the Department of Prosthodontics, Pusan National University Hospital, between April to September, in 2007 were examined. Results and conclusion: The results of this study were as follows: 1. Length of service of fixed prostheses was $8.6{\pm}0.6$ years(mean), 10.0 years(median). 2. Location of fixed prostheses was found to have no statistically significant influence on longevity of fixed prostheses(P>.05). But, the success rate was high in posterior region and in mandible where the failure rate was high in combination(P<.05). 3. Longevity of fixed prostheses made of metal was longest(mean: $13.0{\pm}9.3$, median: 14.0), gold, precious ceramic, non-precious ceramic trailing behind(P<.05). 4. Number of units in fixed prostheses was found to have no statistically significant influence on longevity of fixed prostheses(P>.05). But, the success rate was high in Single-unit and the failure rate was high in over 3-unit(P<.05). 5. Condition of opposing dentition was found to have no statistically significant influence on longevity of fixed prostheses(P>.05). But, the success rate was high in natural dentition(P<.05). 6. Defective margin(28.2%), dental caries(23.0%), periodontal disease(19.3%), periapical disease(16.9%) were frequent complications. In 30.1% of the cases, abutment state after removing fixed prostheses was needed to be extracted.

연구목적: 악구강계의 건강을 심미적, 기능적으로 유지 및 증진시키는 것을 목적으로 치아의 형태 이상이나 결손 등을 갖고 있는 환자들에게 고정성 보철 술식이 보편적으로 시술되어 오고 있다. 환자 스스로의 관리 부족과 더불어 부적절한 기공 과정으로 인해 보철물과 연관된 합병증이 발생할 수 있다. 이를 해결하고자 고정성 보철물의 장기간의 임상 상태 조사에 많은 노력을 기울여 왔으나 자료 수집에 어려움이 많았다. 이에 본 연구에서는 고정성 보철물의 임상적 상태를 조사하여 보철물의 치료 계획과 생존율을 높이는 guideline에 기여하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 2007년 4월에서 9월까지 6개월간 부산대학교병원 치과 보철과에 내원한 초진 환자 중 고정성 보철물을 장착하여 사용 중인 환자를 대상으로 보철물과 관련한 종합적인 상태를 조사하였다. 결과 및 결론: 1. 전체 고정성 보철물의 추정 수명은 10.0년이었고, 평균 장착 기간은 $8.6{\pm}0.6$년이었다. 2. 부위별 추정 수명은 차이가 없었으나(P>.05), 성공률은 하악과 구치부 보철물에서 높았고(P<.05), 전치-구치 혼합형 보철물에서는 실패율이 높았다(P<.05). 3. 재료별 추정 수명은 금속관이 14.0년으로 가장 길었고, 금합금관(10.0년), 귀금속 도재관(10.0년), 비귀금속 도재관(8.0년) 순이었다(P<.05). 그러나 금속관은 실패율이 높았고, 성공률은 금합금관과 귀금속 도재관에서 높았다. 4. 크기별 추정 수명은 차이를 보이지 않았으나(P>.05), 성공률은 단일관에서 높았고(P<.05), 실패율은 3-유닛 이상에서 높았다(P<.05). 5. 대합치 조건별 추정 수명은 차이가 없었으나(P>.05), 고정성 및 가철성 국소 의치가 대합치인 경우 실패율이 높았고, 자연치일 경우 성공률이 높았다(P<.05). 6. 고정성 보철물의 합병증은 치아 우식증(23.0%), 치주 질환(19.3%), 치수 질환(16.9%) 순이었고, 기계적 문제점은 변연 결함(28.2%), 보철물 파절(6.7%), 유지력 상실(4.8%) 순이었다. 보철물을 제거한 후 잔존 치질은 고정성 보철물의 합병증으로 인하여 30.1%가 수복 불가능한 상태였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Schwartz NL, Whitsett LD, Berry TG, Stewart JL. Unserviceable crowns and fixed partial dentures: life-span and causes for loss of serviceability. J Am Dent Assoc 1970;81:1395-401
  2. Walton JN, Gardner FM, Agar JR. A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: length of service and reasons for replacement. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:416-21 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90379-3
  3. Valderhaug J. A 15-year clinical evaluation of fixed prosthodontics. Acta Odontol Scand 1991;49:35-40 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359109041138
  4. Palmqvist S, Swartz B. Artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures 18 to 23 years after placement. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:279-85
  5. Karlsson S. A clinical evaluation of fixed bridges, 10 years following insertion. J Oral Rehabil 1986;13:423-32 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1986.tb01304.x
  6. Glantz PO, Ryge G, Jendresen MD, Nilner K. Quality of extensive fixed prosthodontics after five years. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:475-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90327-5
  7. Glantz PO, Nilner K, Jendresen MD, Sundberg H. Quality of fixed prosthodontics after 15 years. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:247-52 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016359309040574
  8. Glantz PO, Nilner K, Jendresen MD, Sundberg H. Quality of fixed prosthodontics after twenty-two years. Acta Odontol Scand 2002;60:213-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/000163502760147972
  9. Moon HY. A study on the life expectation of dental restorations. Korean Acad Oral Health 1985;9:51-74
  10. Shin WJ, Jeon YS, Lee KW, Lee HY, Han DH. Longevity and failure analysis of fixed restorations serviced in Korea. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2005;43:158-75
  11. Foster LV. The relationship between failure and design in conventional bridgework from general dental practice. J Oral Rehabil 1991;18:491-5 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1991.tb00070.x
  12. Foster LV. Failed conventional bridge work from general dental practice: clinical aspects and treatment needs of 142 cases. Br Dent J 1990;168:199-201 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807133
  13. Roberts DH. The relationship between age and the failure rate of bridge prostheses. Br Dent J 1970;128:175-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802441
  14. Libby G, Arcuri MR, LaVelle WE, Hebl L. Longevity of fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:127-31 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70115-X
  15. Holm C, Tidehag P, Tillberg A, Molin M. Longevity and quality of FPDs: a retrospective study of restorations 30, 20, and 10 years after insertion. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:283-9
  16. Drake CW, Maryniuk GA, Bentley C. Reasons for restoration replacement: differences in practice patterns. Quintessence Int 1990;21:125-30
  17. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973;87:369-77
  18. Leempoel PJ, Van't Hof MA, de Haan AF. Survival studies of dental restorations: criteria, methods and analyses. J Oral Rehabil 1989;16:387-94 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1989.tb01355.x
  19. Kurer PF. Failures in full crown retained dental bridges. Br Dent J 1984;157:190 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805457
  20. Randow K, Glantz PO, Zoger B. Technical failures and some related clinical complications in extensive fixed prosthodontics. An epidemiological study of long-term clinical quality. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:241-55 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358608997726
  21. Richter WA, Ueno H. Relationship of crown margin placement to gingival inflammation. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30:156-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(73)90050-4
  22. Hammerle CH. Success and failure of fixed bridgework. Periodontol 2000 1994;4:41-51 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0757.1994.tb00004.x