km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 本文屬於主題館「reports」 →

樹脂補牙可以撐幾年？材質怎麼選？｜證據鏈

km 編輯部2026-08-13閱讀約 47 分鐘
#證據鏈#牙醫KM#台灣#補牙

本頁是〈樹脂補牙可以撐幾年？材質怎麼選？〉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。

樹脂補牙可以撐幾年？材質怎麼選？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事實單元帳）

  • F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 41159592，傘狀回顧）｜period: 納入 2012 至 2025 年間 16 篇 SR／MA，2026-02 刊出（線上 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: 傘狀回顧為二次彙整，各原始回顧的族群與追蹤期不同；數字為群體層級，不可推估個人年限
  • F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 22192253，文獻回顧）｜period: 檢索 1996 至 2011 年、追蹤 ≥5 年之 34 篇臨床研究，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 年文獻、非統合分析；本卡以 F1 的 2026 傘狀回顧為現行綜合證據，F2 用於年失敗率概念與失敗成因
  • F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 25048250，個別受試者資料統合分析）｜period: 2014 刊出，納入 12 篇追蹤 ≥5 年之縱貫研究｜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: 合併既有臨床試驗資料之觀察性分析，屬關聯而非因果；未報告單一年限
  • F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 23690354，執業場域回溯研究）｜period: 追蹤 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: 單一執業場域、44 位病人的回溯資料，樣本小；同錨見 KM-DENTAL-12 卡 F19
  • F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42444634，Cochrane 系統性回顧概觀）｜period: 檢索至 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: 概觀作者標示多數比較的確定性為低或極低；同錨見 KM-DENTAL-12 卡 F17、KM-DENTAL-02 卡 F14
  • F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 34387873，Cochrane 系統性回顧，2014 年版之更新版，為本題之現行版本）｜period: 檢索至 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: 主要統合分析族群為兒童；作者評所有納入研究為高偏差風險；不得外推為成人個別療效
  • F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 40458903，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 2025-09 刊出，納入追蹤 ≥3 年之 15 項 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: 直接比較兩材料者僅 2 項研究，證據品質低
  • F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 39286910，德國 S3 臨床實務指引第 1 部）｜period: 文獻檢索至 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: 德國學會共識，非台灣主管機關規範；個別適應症仍由臨床判定
  • F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 39286911，德國 S3 臨床實務指引第 2 部）｜period: 文獻檢索至 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: 屬臨床操作面建議，非病人可自行執行事項；原摘要有連字號斷字，本卡以節錄比對
  • F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 37380250，ADA 實證臨床實務指引）｜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: 適用對象為牙髓具活性、未接受根管治療之乳牙與恆牙的中度與進展性齲齒；同錨見 KM-DENTAL-12 卡 F6
  • F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 39122602，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 2024-11 刊出，納入 5 項 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: 證據等級極低、全部納入研究為高偏差風險；限複合樹脂間接修復，不涵蓋陶瓷全冠
  • F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 37597003，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 2023-09 刊出，觀察期 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: 限冠內（intracoronal）間接修復；短期觀察、樣本數低
  • F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 26403154，Cochrane 系統性回顧，2012 年版之更新版 pub3，為本題之現行版本）｜period: 檢索至 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: 僅 1 項試驗、限前臼齒併碳纖維釘柱；檢索日期已逾 10 年，本卡標示為證據缺口而非結論；同錨見 KM-DENTAL-03 卡
  • F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 30232622，更新版系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 檢索至 2017-02，2018-11 刊出，為 2006 與 2012 兩版之更新｜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 術式與其研究情境，不等同一般診間之玻璃離子填補；含多國研究族群
  • F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 34407233，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 檢索至 2020-04，2021-12 刊出，納入 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: 本卡僅引用其場域結論，未引用該文之存活百分比區間
  • F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 35362754，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 2022-07 刊出，3 項研究納入統合｜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: 納入研究僅 3 項、確定性極低；不得解讀為修補與置換等效之定論
  • F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 7594013，臨床決策觀察研究）｜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 年單一研究、以牙醫師決策為單位；本卡引用其方向性（重做傾向擴大範圍），不作現況比例宣稱
  • F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 31312812，系統性文獻回顧與批判性評析）｜period: 檢索至 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: 對象為前牙直接複合樹脂修復；未做統合分析，本卡僅引用其異質性與影響因素結論
  • F19｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫逐字比對）｜basis: law｜period: 現行條文｜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: 條文引述，非給付判定；個別項目以健保署現行公告為準；同錨見 VERIFIED-FACTS.md
  • F20｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載逐字比對）｜basis: law｜period: 現行條文｜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: 條文引述，非法律意見
  • F21｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載逐字比對）｜basis: law｜period: 現行條文｜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: 條文引述，非法律意見
  • F22｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載，頁面顯示提供機關為臺北市政府衛生局）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 詮釋資料更新時間 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: 單一縣市例證，其他縣市頁面放量前逐一補驗
  • F23｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05 OP 以瀏覽器實測兩軌類別逐項讀取；本卡沿用同錨，未重驗）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 2026-08-05 實測現況｜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: 屬他人實測紀錄之沿用，本卡未重新量測；用途僅為排除錯誤查證管道，不作費用陳述
  • 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: 曝光為屬性級數字非去重流量；發布轉檔時本條不輸出，改以一句選題依據說明代之
  • F25｜confidence: 結構性整理（編輯框架，非外部事實宣稱）｜basis: editorial_framework｜period: 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜span: 同族分工聲明（本卡管壽命與選材、KM-DENTAL-12 管去齲決策、KM-DENTAL-02 管術後照護）與存活率三種不可換算的閱讀框架，為本站依 F1 至 F18 整理的溝通用結構｜caveat: 非診斷工具、非文獻結論，不得引為醫學事實
  • F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫逐字比對）｜basis: law｜period: 現行條文｜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: 條文引述，非法律意見；本卡不列任何金額

來源清單

取用日期均為 2026-08-06；PubMed 條目以 E-utilities efetch 取得摘要原文逐字比對，並逐條實測條目頁回應 200；台灣法規與官方資料集以 ego-browser 實載逐字比對。

  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. 全民健康保險法 第 51 條（全國法規資料庫）
  20. 醫療法 第 81 條（全國法規資料庫）
  21. 醫療法 第 87 條（全國法規資料庫）
  22. 政府資料開放平臺：臺北市醫療收費標準（提供機關：臺北市政府衛生局）
  23. 跨卡已驗事實：`km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`（健保署醫材比價網兩軌類別不含牙科，2026-08-05 OP 瀏覽器實測）
  24. 內部數據：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` #16 附錄（詞×站×曝光逐筆可對帳）
  25. 編輯框架：本站同族分工聲明與存活率閱讀框架（無外部來源，標示為結構性整理）
  26. 醫療法 第 22 條（全國法規資料庫）

內部引用鏈

  • 要不要補、怎麼補、去齲策略：蛀牙了一定要補嗎？補牙怎麼補？（KM-DENTAL-12）
  • 補完多久可以吃東西、多久可以刷牙：補牙後多久可以吃東西、多久可以刷牙？（KM-DENTAL-02）
  • 走到牙冠、假牙時的報價單怎麼讀：做一顆固定假牙要多少錢？（KM-DENTAL-03）
發布閘門提醒：本卡為 draft。四語（zh-Hans／en／ja）未產前不得進 km_entries；F23 為沿用他人實測之同錨，若要在可見層強化該句，發布前應由 OP 重新實測一次。F24 內部數據條與 frontmatter 的曝光欄位，發布轉檔時依 2026-08-05 裁定剝除。

FAQ

樹脂補牙可以撐幾年？
**文獻能給的是族群存活率，不是個人年限。** 2026 年的傘狀回顧整理：納入研究的族群中，傳統複合樹脂的五年存活率高於九成，使用多步驟黏著劑時尤其如此 [F1]；一份回顧 34 篇長期研究的文章則指出，九成的研究顯示第 I 類與第 II 類窩洞的後牙樹脂可達到 1% 至 3% 的年失敗率 [F2]。這些是研究族群的統計，不能推估任何一顆牙能用幾年；你這顆牙能撐多久，取決於蛀牙風險、缺損大小、咬合條件與後續照護，須由牙醫師評估 [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].
樹脂和銀粉，哪一個比較耐用？
**看族群、看年代、看缺損大小。** 2021 年 Cochrane 回顧在 921 位兒童的資料上算出，複合樹脂的失敗風險接近銀汞合金的兩倍（RR 1.89），續發蛀牙風險也較高（RR 2.14），但兩者的斷裂風險沒有顯著差異，且證據確定性為低 [F6]。2026 年 Cochrane 概觀補上關鍵限制：那些研究自 1990 年代末收案，樹脂失敗率接近 15%，而當代證據中的樹脂約 5% [F5]。在兩個牙面以上的複雜修復上，2025 年的統合分析未發現統計顯著差異（p = 0.06），並認為證據不足以支持任一材料較優 [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].
補牙材質到底怎麼選？
**依適應症，不依排名。** ADA 2023 指引的 12 條材料建議是按牙齒位置與涉及牙面來分的，且對所有納入的直接材料都只給條件性建議 [F10]。德國 S3 指引寫明複合樹脂適用於第 I 至第 V 類窩洞、也可用於牙尖置換，並在後牙區建議直接複合樹脂優先於間接複合樹脂嵌體 [F8]；該建議是指引在其適用情境下的措辭，個別牙齒仍須由牙醫師評估 [F8][F10]。玻璃離子類在高蛀牙風險或濕氣挑戰情境仍具用途 [F1]。本卡不推薦任何品牌或特定產品，選擇須由牙醫師依你的牙位、缺損範圍與口腔條件評估 [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.

來源錨定

引用本文

km 編輯部・《樹脂補牙可以撐幾年？材質怎麼選？｜證據鏈》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-08-13・https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/dental-composite-filling-longevity-evidence

相關文章

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