km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 本文属于主题馆「reports」 →

树脂补牙可以撑几年？材质怎么选？｜證據鏈

km 編輯部2026-08-13阅读约 47 分钟
#證據鏈#牙醫KM#台灣#補牙

本頁是〈树脂补牙可以撑几年？材质怎么选？〉的事實單元帳：每一條主張對應的來源、證據等級、地域與期間、原文引句與限制，逐條攤開。

树脂补牙可以撑几年？材质怎么选？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事实单元帐）

  • F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 41159592，伞状回顾）｜period: 纳入 2012 至 2025 年间 16 篇 SR／MA，2026-02 刊出（线上 2025-10-29）｜geo: universal｜span: 「Sixteen systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2012 and 2025 were included, representing over 15,000 restorations with follow-up periods ranging from 6 to 120 months」「Conventional composites demonstrated > 90% 5-year survival, especially with multi-step adhesives」「Bulk-fill resins showed similar short-medium-term outcomes (failure rates < 7%), but long-term data remain limited」「Ormocer-based composites had significantly higher failure rates (12.1%), primarily due to marginal degradation」「GICs exhibited lower survival but remain useful in high caries risk or moisture challenged conditions」「Adhesive protocol emerged as a key prognostic factor across all materials」｜caveat: 伞状回顾为二次汇整，各原始回顾的人群与追踪期不同；数字为群体层级，不可推估个人年限
  • F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 22192253，文献回顾）｜period: 检索 1996 至 2011 年、追踪 ≥5 年之 34 篇临床研究，2012 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「90% of the clinical studies indicated that annual failure rates between 1% and 3% can be achieved with Class I and II posterior composite restorations depending on several factors such as tooth type and location, operator, and socioeconomic, demographic, and behavioral elements」「The material properties showed a minor effect on longevity」「The main reasons for failure in the long term are secondary caries, related to the individual caries risk, and fracture, related to the presence of a lining or the strength of the material used as well as patient factors such as bruxism」「Repair is a viable alternative to replacement, and it can increase significantly the lifetime of restorations」｜caveat: 2012 年文献、非荟萃分析；本卡以 F1 的 2026 伞状回顾为现行综合证据，F2 用于年失败率概念与失败成因
  • F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 25048250，个别受试者资料荟萃分析）｜period: 2014 刊出，纳入 12 篇追踪 ≥5 年之纵贯研究｜geo: universal｜span: 「we conducted a search resulting in 12 longitudinal studies of direct posterior resin composite restorations with at least 5 years' follow-up」「Of all restorations, 2,816 (2,585 Class II and 231 Class I) were included in the analysis, of which 569 failed during the observation period. Main reasons for failure were caries and fracture」「The regression analyses showed a significantly higher risk of failure for restorations in high-caries-risk individuals and those with a higher number of restored surfaces」｜caveat: 合并既有临床试验资料之观察性分析，属关联而非因果；未报告单一年限
  • F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 23690354，执业场域回溯研究）｜period: 追踪 10 至 18 年，2013 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「In total, 306 posterior composite restorations placed in 44 adult patients were investigated after 10 to 18 yrs」「In total, 30% of the restorations failed, of which 82% were found in patients with 1 or 2 risk factors. Secondary caries was the main reason of failure within caries-risk patients」「Tooth type (p < .001), arch (p = .013), and pulpal vitality (p = .003) significantly affected restoration survival」｜caveat: 单一执业场域、44 位病人的回溯资料，样本小；同锚见 KM-DENTAL-12 卡 F19
  • F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42444634，Cochrane 系统性回顾概观）｜period: 检索至 2025-04，2026-07 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「One Cochrane review reported low-certainty evidence that the risk of restoration failure may be 7% less with dental amalgam than RBC (RD 0.07, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.09; 2 studies, 3010 restorations; 5 to 7 years follow-up; class I and II restorations)」「Studies in this review began recruitment in the late 1990s, which may affect the generalisability of this evidence to contemporary practice, and the failure rate for RBC in these studies was higher than in contemporary evidence of RBC in other reviews (almost 15% compared with approximately 5%)」「The risk of restoration failure is likely to be low, and no different between groups, at less than 5% (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.03; 7 studies, 511 restorations; 1 to 10 years follow-up)」「there may be little or no difference in the risk of restoration failure between RBC or GIC (RD -0.07, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.04, favours RBC; 1 study, 60 restorations; 10 years follow-up)」「RMGIC may be more likely to reduce the risk of restoration failure than GIC in class I restorations (RD -0.19, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.02; 1 study, 50 restorations), and class II restorations (RD -0.71, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.48; 1 study, 38 restorations), both at two years follow-up from low-certainty evidence in a very small sample」「Very few primary studies (about 10%) were conducted in general practice」「The Minamata Convention on Mercury recommends a phase-down of amalgam use in dentistry. Alternative mercury-free direct-placement restorative materials are available」｜caveat: 概观作者标示多数比较的确定性为低或极低；同锚见 KM-DENTAL-12 卡 F17、KM-DENTAL-02 卡 F14
  • F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 34387873，Cochrane 系统性回顾，2014 年版之更新版，为本题之现行版本）｜period: 检索至 2021-02-16，2021-08 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children」「We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001)」「We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66)」「composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted」「The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols」｜caveat: 主要荟萃分析人群为儿童；作者评所有纳入研究为高偏差风险；不得外推为成人个别疗效
  • F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 40458903，系统性回顾与荟萃分析）｜period: 2025-09 刊出，纳入追踪 ≥3 年之 15 项 RCT｜geo: universal｜span: 「Only two studies compared AM and RC restorations. Although the combined data from these studies showed a trend toward higher failure rates in multisurface RC restorations, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.06)」「The most common reasons for the failure of RC restorations were secondary caries, restoration fracture, and tooth fracture. For AM, the most common reasons for failure were secondary caries and tooth fracture」「The quality of the evidence was low. The scarcity of studies comparing RC and AM in complex restorations has resulted in insufficient evidence to substantiate superior performance by either material」｜caveat: 直接比较两材料者仅 2 项研究，证据品质低
  • F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 39286910，德国 S3 临床实务指引第 1 部）｜period: 文献检索至 2021-12，2024-09 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Composite materials are a viable option for the direct restoration of cavity Classes I-V and may also be used for restorations with cusp replacement, and tooth shape corrections」「In the posterior region, direct composite restorations should be preferred over indirect composite inlays」「For Class V restorations, composite materials can be used if adequate contamination control and adhesive technique are ensured」｜caveat: 德国学会共识，非台湾主管机关规范；个别适应症仍由临床判定
  • F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 39286911，德国 S3 临床实务指引第 2 部）｜period: 文献检索至 2021-12，2024-09 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The guideline advocates for one-stage selective caries removal near the pulp and underscores the effectiveness of various isolation techniques, adhesive systems, and the crucial role of light polymerization」「The use of anatomically …sectional matrices and phosphoric acid etching is recommended to enhance restoration quality」「composite restorations is advised to improve surface finish」｜caveat: 属临床操作面建议，非病人可自行执行事项；原摘要有连字号断字，本卡以节录比对
  • F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 37380250，ADA 实证临床实务指引）｜period: 2023-07 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The panel formulated 16 recommendations and good practice statements: 4 on CTR approaches specific to lesion depth and 12 on direct restorative materials specific to tooth location and surfaces involved」「Although the panel conditionally recommended for the use of all direct restorative materials, they prioritized some materials over the use of others for certain clinical scenarios」「All included direct restorative materials may be effective in treating moderate and advanced caries lesions on vital, nonendodontically treated primary and permanent teeth」｜caveat: 适用对象为牙髓具活性、未接受根管治疗之乳牙与恒牙的中度与进展性龋齿；同锚见 KM-DENTAL-12 卡 F6
  • F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 39122602，系统性回顾与荟萃分析）｜period: 2024-11 刊出，纳入 5 项 RCT｜geo: universal｜span: 「Overall, 627 restorations of which 323 were direct and 304 indirect composite restorations have been placed in 279 patients (age: 28-81 years)」「The highest annual failure rates (AFR) were found for indirect restorations ranging from 0 % to 15.5 %. Lower AFR were found for direct restorations ranging from 0 % to 5.4 %」「The most frequent failures were found to be chipping and fracture of the restoration followed by caries」「Meta-analysis revealed that the failure rate for direct restorations was significantly lower than for indirect restorations (Risk Ratio (RR) [95 %CI] = 0.61 [0.47; 0.79]; very low level of evidence). Furthermore, all studies showed a high risk of bias」「Direct and indirect composite restorations can be recommended for large class II cavities including cusp coverage in posterior teeth for single tooth restoration」｜caveat: 证据等级极低、全部纳入研究为高偏差风险；限复合树脂间接修复，不涵盖陶瓷全冠
  • F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 37597003，系统性回顾与荟萃分析）｜period: 2023-09 刊出，观察期 1 至 7 年｜geo: universal｜span: 「A total of 12 eligible studies were selected, which included 946 restorations evaluated over a minimum observation period of 1 year and a maximum observation period of 7 years」「intracoronal indirect resin composite restorations have an 18% higher rate of failure when compared to intracoronal gold restorations over 5-7 years of clinical service」「risk difference = - 0.18 [95% CI: - 0.27, - 0.09]; p = .0002」「medium-quality data indicates that lithium disilicate and indirect composite materials demonstrate comparable survival rates in short-term follow-up」「The short observation period, limited number of eligible articles, and low sample size of the included studies were significant limitations」｜caveat: 限冠内（intracoronal）间接修复；短期观察、样本数低
  • F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 26403154，Cochrane 系统性回顾，2012 年版之更新版 pub3，为本题之现行版本）｜period: 检索至 2015-03-26，2015-09 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The search is up-to-date as of 26 March 2015」「We included one trial, which was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection and attrition bias. The 117 participants with a root-filled, premolar tooth restored with a carbon fibre post, were randomised to either a full coverage metal-ceramic crown or direct adhesive composite restoration」「There is insufficient evidence to assess the effects of crowns compared to conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth」「clinicians should continue to base decisions about how to restore root-filled teeth on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients」「There was no clear difference between the crown and composite group and the composite only group for non-catastrophic failures of the restoration (1/54 versus 3/53; RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.05) or failures of the post (2/54 versus 1/53; RR 1.96; 95% CI 0.18 to 21.01) at three years.」｜caveat: 仅 1 项试验、限前臼齿并碳纤维钉柱；检索日期已逾 10 年，本卡标示为证据缺口而非结论；同锚见 KM-DENTAL-03 卡
  • F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 30232622，更新版系统性回顾与荟萃分析）｜period: 检索至 2017-02，2018-11 刊出，为 2006 与 2012 两版之更新｜geo: universal｜span: 「for single-surface ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth over the first 3 years, they were 87.1% (± 3.2); and for multiple-surface ART restorations in permanent posterior teeth over the first 5 years, they were 77% (± 9.0)」「The survival percentages and standard errors of single-surface and multiple-surface ART restorations in primary posterior teeth over the first 2 years were 94.3% (± 1.5) and 65.4% (± 3.9), respectively」｜caveat: 限 ART 术式与其研究情境，不等同一般诊间之玻璃离子填补；含多国研究人群
  • F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 34407233，系统性回顾与荟萃分析）｜period: 检索至 2020-04，2021-12 刊出，纳入 34 篇｜geo: universal｜span: 「ART is a feasible approach for field settings as well as conventional dental offices」「for permanent teeth, the overall percentage of survival rate was not influenced by setting」｜caveat: 本卡仅引用其场域结论，未引用该文之存留百分比区间
  • F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 35362754，系统性回顾与荟萃分析）｜period: 2022-07 刊出，3 项研究纳入统合｜geo: universal｜span: 「There was no difference in the risk of failure of repaired and replaced defective direct restorations (RR: 1.21, 95% CI: 0.51-2.83), either for resin composite (p = 0.97) or amalgam (p = 0.51) restorations. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was very low」「Restoration repair is a procedure that is included in the minimal intervention principle for improvement of tooth longevity」「Further studies are required before definitive conclusions can be drawn」｜caveat: 纳入研究仅 3 项、确定性极低；不得解读为修补与置换等效之定论
  • F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 7594013，临床决策观察研究）｜period: 1995-10 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「In this study involving 1,337 decisions to replace existing restorations in posterior teeth, the authors noted that 70 percent of all recommendations resulted in an increased number of restored surfaces」「suggests that practitioners should attempt to avoid premature rerestoration since it could hasten the cycle」｜caveat: 1995 年单一研究、以牙医师决策为单位；本卡引用其方向性（重做倾向扩大范围），不作现况比例宣称
  • F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 31312812，系统性文献回顾与批判性评析）｜period: 检索至 2016-09，2019 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Yearly failure rates (YFRs) were computed for each study based on survival rates or, when not reported, using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) scores leading to reintervention」「Overall, anterior composite restorations have shown a large heterogeneity in performance, as is typically observed in reviews of clinical studies, but the present appraisal identified influential factors such as treatment environment and the number of operators」｜caveat: 对象为前牙直接复合树脂修复；未做荟萃分析，本卡仅引用其异质性与影响因素结论
  • F19｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载全国法规资料库逐字比对）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《全民健康保險法》第 51 條「十一、義齒、義眼、眼鏡、助聽器、輪椅、拐杖及其他非具積極治療性之裝具。」｜caveat: 条文引述，非给付判定；个别项目以健保署现行公告为准；同锚见 VERIFIED-FACTS.md
  • F20｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载逐字比对）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 81 條「醫療機構診治病人時，應向病人或其法定代理人、配偶、親屬或關係人告知其病情、治療方針、處置、用藥、預後情形及可能之不良反應。」｜caveat: 条文引述，非法律意见
  • F21｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载逐字比对）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 87 條「廣告內容暗示或影射醫療業務者，視為醫療廣告。醫學新知或研究報告之發表、病人衛生教育、學術性刊物，未涉及招徠醫療業務者，不視為醫療廣告。」｜caveat: 条文引述，非法律意见
  • F22｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载，页面显示提供机关为台北市政府卫生局）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 诠释资料更新时间 2026-07-13｜geo: TW｜span: 政府資料開放平臺資料集「臺北市醫療收費標準」，提供機關臺北市政府衛生局｜caveat: 单一县市例证，其他县市页面放量前逐一补验
  • F23｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05 OP 以浏览器实测两轨类别逐项读取；本卡沿用同锚，未重验）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 2026-08-05 实测现况｜geo: TW｜span: 健保署醫材比價網兩軌查詢類別皆不含牙科，頁面全文無牙字（查證紀錄見 km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md）｜caveat: 属他人实测纪录之沿用，本卡未重新量测；用途仅为排除错误查证管道，不作费用陈述
  • F24｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset｜period: 2025-03 至 2026-08 GSC｜geo: TW｜span: backlog #16 補牙樹脂壽命等 6 詞項合計曝光 185,368，跨 3 站｜caveat: 曝光为属性级数字非去重流量；发布转档时本条不输出，改以一句选题依据说明代之
  • F25｜confidence: 结构性整理（编辑框架，非外部事实宣称）｜basis: editorial_framework｜period: 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜span: 同族分工声明（本卡管寿命与选材、KM-DENTAL-12 管去龋决策、KM-DENTAL-02 管术后照护）与存留率三种不可换算的阅读框架，为本站依 F1 至 F18 整理的沟通用结构｜caveat: 非诊断工具、非文献结论，不得引为医学事实
  • F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载全国法规资料库逐字比对）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 22 條「醫療機構收取醫療費用，應開給載明收費項目及金額之收據。醫療機構不得違反收費標準，超額或擅立收費項目收費。」｜caveat: 条文引述，非法律意见；本卡不列任何金额

来源清单

取用日期均为 2026-08-06；PubMed 条目以 E-utilities efetch 取得摘要原文逐字比对，并逐条实测条目页回应 200；台湾法规与官方资料集以 ego-browser 实载逐字比对。

  1. Fernández E, et al. Clinical Longevity of Direct Dental Restorations: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2026;38(2):307-324. PMID 41159592
  2. Demarco FF, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87-101. PMID 22192253
  3. Opdam NJ, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(10):943-949. PMID 25048250
  4. van de Sande FH, et al. Patient risk factors' influence on survival of posterior composites. J Dent Res. 2013;92(7 Suppl):78S-83S. PMID 23690354
  5. Lewis SR, et al. Restorative materials for direct coronal restoration of permanent posterior teeth: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2026;7(7):CD016279. PMID 42444634
  6. Worthington HV, et al. Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;8(8):CD005620. PMID 34387873
  7. Santos M, et al. Clinical Longevity of Complex Direct Posterior Resin Composite and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Oper Dent. 2025;50(4):E30-E46. PMID 40458903
  8. Wolff D, et al. Direct Composite Restorations on Permanent Teeth in the Anterior and Posterior Region - An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline - Part 1. J Adhes Dent. 2024;26:185-200. PMID 39286910
  9. Sekundo C, et al. Direct Composite Restorations on Permanent Teeth in the Anterior and Posterior Region - An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline - Part 2. J Adhes Dent. 2024;26:201-212. PMID 39286911
  10. Dhar V, et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guideline on restorative treatments for caries lesions: A report from the American Dental Association. J Am Dent Assoc. 2023;154(7):551-566. PMID 37380250
  11. Tennert C, et al. Longevity of posterior direct versus indirect composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2024;40(11):e95-e101. PMID 39122602
  12. Bresser RA, et al. Clinical longevity of intracoronal restorations made of gold, lithium disilicate, leucite, and indirect resin composite: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(9):4877-4896. PMID 37597003
  13. Sequeira-Byron P, et al. Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root-filled teeth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(9):CD009109. PMID 26403154
  14. de Amorim RG, et al. Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(8):2703-2725. PMID 30232622
  15. Garbim JR, et al. Atraumatic restorative treatment restorations performed in different settings: systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust Dent J. 2021;66(4):430-443. PMID 34407233
  16. Mendes LT, et al. Risk of failure of repaired versus replaced defective direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(7):4917-4927. PMID 35362754
  17. Brantley CF, et al. Does the cycle of rerestoration lead to larger restorations? J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126(10):1407-1413. PMID 7594013
  18. Dietschi D, et al. Clinical performance of direct anterior composite restorations: a systematic literature review and critical appraisal. Int J Esthet Dent. 2019;14(3):252-270. PMID 31312812
  19. 全民健康保险法 第 51 条（全国法规资料库）
  20. 医疗法 第 81 条（全国法规资料库）
  21. 医疗法 第 87 条（全国法规资料库）
  22. 政府资料开放平台：臺北市醫療收費標準（提供机关：台北市政府卫生局）
  23. 跨卡已验事实：`km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`（健保署医材比价网两轨类别不含牙科，2026-08-05 OP 浏览器实测）
  24. 内部数据：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` #16 附录（词×站×曝光逐笔可对帐）
  25. 编辑框架：本站同族分工声明与存留率阅读框架（无外部来源，标示为结构性整理）
  26. 医疗法 第 22 条（全国法规资料库）

内部引用链

  • 要不要补、怎么补、去龋策略：蛀牙了一定要补吗？补牙怎么补？（KM-DENTAL-12）
  • 补完多久可以吃东西、多久可以刷牙：补牙后多久可以吃东西、多久可以刷牙？（KM-DENTAL-02）
  • 走到牙冠、假牙时的报价单怎么读：做一颗固定假牙要多少钱？（KM-DENTAL-03）
发布闸门提醒：本卡为 draft。四语（zh-Hans／en／ja）未产前不得进 km_entries；F23 为沿用他人实测之同锚，若要在可见层强化该句，发布前应由 OP 重新实测一次。F24 内部数据条与 frontmatter 的曝光栏位，发布转档时依 2026-08-05 裁定剥除。

FAQ

树脂补牙可以撑几年？
**文献能给的是人群存留率，不是个人年限。** 2026 年的伞状回顾整理：纳入研究的人群中，传统复合树脂的五年存留率高于九成，使用多步骤粘接剂时尤其如此 [F1]；一份回顾 34 篇长期研究的文章则指出，九成的研究显示第 I 类与第 II 类窝洞的后牙树脂可达到 1% 至 3% 的年失败率 [F2]。这些是研究人群的统计，不能推估任何一颗牙能用几年；你这颗牙能撑多久，取决于蛀牙风险、缺损大小、咬合条件与后续照护，须由牙医师评估 [F3][F4]。
レジンの詰め物は何年もちますか？ — 文献が示すのは集団生存率です。従来型レジンの 5 年生存率は 90% 超、I・II 級後方部修復の AFR は研究の 90% で 1% から 3% でした [F1][F2]。う蝕リスク、欠損、咬合、保守管理を歯科医師が評価します [F3][F4]。
How many years can a composite filling last? — **The literature can provide population survival, not an individual lifespan.** The 2026 umbrella review found five-year survival above 90% for conventional composite in the included populations, especially with multi-step adhesives [F1]. A review of 34 long-term studies found that 90% of studies reported annual failure rates of 1% to 3% for Class I and II posterior composites [F2]. These are study-population statistics and cannot predict the lifespan of one tooth. How long your restoration lasts depends on caries risk, defect size, occlusion, and continuing care, which a dentist must assess [F3][F4].
树脂和银粉，哪一个比较耐用？
**看人群、看年代、看缺损大小。** 2021 年 Cochrane 回顾在 921 位儿童的资料上算出，复合树脂的失败风险接近银汞合金的两倍（RR 1.89），续发蛀牙风险也较高（RR 2.14），但两者的断裂风险没有显著差异，且证据确定性为低 [F6]。2026 年 Cochrane 概观补上关键限制：那些研究自 1990 年代末收案，树脂失败率接近 15%，而当代证据中的树脂约 5% [F5]。在两个牙面以上的复杂修复上，2025 年的荟萃分析未发现统计显著差异（p = 0.06），并认为证据不足以支持任一材料较优 [F7]。
レジンとアマルガムでは、どちらが長持ちしますか？ — 対象、時代、欠損の大きさを分けて読みます。小児 921 人ではレジンの失敗 RR は 1.89、二次う蝕 RR は 2.14、破折に有意差はありませんでしたが、低確実性です [F6]。複雑修復も有意差を示していません（p = 0.06）[F7]。
Which is more durable, composite or amalgam? — **It depends on the population, study era, and defect size.** In 921 children, the 2021 Cochrane review calculated composite failure risk at nearly twice that of amalgam (RR 1.89) and secondary-caries risk as higher (RR 2.14), with no significant difference in fracture risk and low-certainty evidence [F6]. The 2026 Cochrane overview adds a key limit: those studies began in the late 1990s, with composite failure near 15% versus about 5% in contemporary evidence [F5]. For complex restorations of more than two surfaces, the 2025 meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference (p = 0.06) and insufficient evidence to establish either material as superior [F7].
补牙材质到底怎么选？
**依适应症，不依排名。** ADA 2023 指引的 12 条材料建议是按牙齿位置与涉及牙面来分的，且对所有纳入的直接材料都只给条件性建议 [F10]。德国 S3 指引写明复合树脂适用于第 I 至第 V 类窝洞、也可用于牙尖置换，并在后牙区建议直接复合树脂优先于间接复合树脂嵌体 [F8]；该建议是指引在其适用情境下的措辞，个别牙齿仍须由牙医师评估 [F8][F10]。玻璃离子类在高蛀牙风险或湿气挑战情境仍具用途 [F1]。本卡不推荐任何品牌或特定产品，选择须由牙医师依你的牙位、缺损范围与口腔条件评估 [F10]。
補修材料はどう選びますか？ — 適応で選びます。ADA の材料推奨は歯の位置と修復面別で、個々の歯の判断は歯科医師が行います [F8][F10]。GIC 類はう蝕高リスクや湿潤管理が難しい状況で用途があります [F1]。
How should a filling material be chosen? — **By indication, not by ranking.** The ADA’s 2023 guideline organizes its 12 material recommendations by tooth location and involved surfaces and gives only conditional recommendations for all included direct materials [F10]. The German S3 guideline says composite is suitable for Class I–V cavities and can be used for cusp replacement; in posterior teeth it prefers direct composite over indirect composite inlays [F8]. That is guideline language within its scope, and an individual tooth still requires a dentist’s assessment [F8][F10]. GIC materials can retain a role in high-caries-risk or moisture-challenged situations [F1]. This card recommends no brand or specific product.

来源锚定

引用本文

km 編輯部・《树脂补牙可以撑几年？材质怎么选？｜證據鏈》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-08-13・https://km.idaeo.ai/post/reports/dental-composite-filling-longevity-evidence

相关文章

更新 2026-08-13T14:17:05.216Z · server-rendered · four-language · IDAEO 知識庫