km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 本記事はテーマ館「reports」の所蔵です →

コンポジットレジンの詰め物は何年もつ？材料はどう選ぶ？｜證據鏈

km 編輯部2026-08-13約50分で読了
#證據鏈#牙醫KM#台灣#補牙

本頁是〈コンポジットレジンの詰め物は何年もつ？材料はどう選ぶ？〉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。

コンポジットレジンの詰め物は何年もつ？材料はどう選ぶ？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事実単位帳）

  • F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 41159592、アンブレラレビュー）｜period: 2012～2025 年に発表された 16 件の SR／MA を採択、2026-02 刊行（オンライン 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: アンブレラレビューは二次的な集約であり、元の各レビューでは対象集団と追跡期間が異なる。数値は集団レベルであり、個人の使用年数は推定できない。
  • F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 22192253、文献レビュー）｜period: 1996～2011 年を検索、追跡 ≥5 年の臨床研究 34 件、2012 年刊行｜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 年の文献レビューであり、メタ解析ではない。本カードでは F1 の 2026 年アンブレラレビューを現行の統合根拠とし、F2 は年間失敗率の概念と失敗要因に用いる。
  • F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 25048250、個別参加者データのメタ解析）｜period: 2014 年刊行、追跡 ≥5 年の縦断研究 12 件を採択｜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: 既存臨床研究データを統合した観察分析であり、因果ではなく関連を示す。単一年数の結果は報告していない。
  • F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 23690354、診療現場の後ろ向き研究）｜period: 追跡 10～18 年、2013 年刊行｜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: 単一の診療現場における患者 44 人の後ろ向きデータで、標本は小さい。同じアンカーは KM-DENTAL-12 カード F19 を参照。
  • F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42444634、Cochrane 系統的レビューの概観）｜period: 2025-04 まで検索、2026-07 刊行｜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: 概観の著者は、比較の大半の確実性が低い、または非常に低いと示した。同じアンカーは KM-DENTAL-12 カード F17、KM-DENTAL-02 カード F14 を参照。
  • F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 34387873、Cochrane 系統的レビュー、2014 年版の更新版。本テーマの現行版）｜period: 2021-02-16 まで検索、2021-08 刊行｜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: 主要なメタ解析の対象集団は小児であり、著者は採択研究すべてを高いバイアスリスクと評価した。成人個人の治療効果へ外挿してはならない。
  • F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 40458903、系統的レビューとメタ解析）｜period: 2025-09 刊行、追跡 ≥3 年の RCT 15 件を採択｜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: 両材料を直接比較した研究は 2 件のみで、エビデンスの質は低い。
  • F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 39286910、ドイツ S3 臨床実践ガイドライン第 1 部）｜period: 2021-12 まで文献検索、2024-09 刊行｜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: ドイツの学会による合意であり、台湾の主管機関による規範ではない。個別の適応は臨床で判断する。
  • F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 39286911、ドイツ S3 臨床実践ガイドライン第 2 部）｜period: 2021-12 まで文献検索、2024-09 刊行｜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: 臨床操作に関する推奨であり、患者が自ら実施する事項ではない。元の抄録にはハイフネーションによる分割があり、本カードでは抜粋を照合した。
  • F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: clinical_guideline（PMID 37380250、ADA エビデンスに基づく臨床実践ガイドライン）｜period: 2023-07 刊行｜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: 対象は、歯髄が生活しており根管治療を受けていない乳歯および永久歯の中等度・進行性う蝕である。同じアンカーは KM-DENTAL-12 カード F6 を参照。
  • F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 39122602、系統的レビューとメタ解析）｜period: 2024-11 刊行、RCT 5 件を採択｜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: エビデンスの確実性は非常に低く、採択研究はすべて高いバイアスリスクである。複合レジンの間接修復に限られ、セラミック全冠は含まれない。
  • F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 37597003、系統的レビューとメタ解析）｜period: 2023-09 刊行、観察期間 1～7 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: 歯冠内（intracoronal）の間接修復に限られる。観察期間は短く、標本数は少ない。
  • F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 26403154、Cochrane 系統的レビュー、2012 年版の更新版 pub3。本テーマの現行版）｜period: 2015-03-26 まで検索、2015-09 刊行｜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: 試験は 1 件のみで、炭素繊維ポストを併用した小臼歯に限られる。検索日から 10 年以上経過しており、本カードでは結論ではなくエビデンスの欠落として示す。同じアンカーは KM-DENTAL-03 カードを参照。
  • F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 30232622、更新版の系統的レビューとメタ解析）｜period: 2017-02 まで検索、2018-11 刊行。2006 年版・2012 年版の更新版｜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: ART 術式およびその研究条件に限られ、一般の診療室で行うグラスアイオノマー充填と同一ではない。複数国の研究集団を含む。
  • F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 34407233、系統的レビューとメタ解析）｜period: 2020-04 まで検索、2021-12 刊行、34 件を採択｜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: 本カードでは診療環境に関する結論のみを引用し、当該論文の生存率の百分率区間は引用しない。
  • F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 35362754、系統的レビューとメタ解析）｜period: 2022-07 刊行、3 件を統合｜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: 採択研究は 3 件のみで、確実性は非常に低い。修復と再製作が同等だという確定的な結論として解釈してはならない。
  • F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 7594013、臨床意思決定の観察研究）｜period: 1995-10 刊行｜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 年の単一研究で、単位は歯科医師の意思決定である。本カードでは再製作が修復範囲を拡大しやすいという方向性のみを引用し、現時点の割合は主張しない。
  • F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 31312812、系統的文献レビューと批判的評価）｜period: 2016-09 まで検索、2019 年刊行｜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: 対象は前歯の直接複合レジン修復である。メタ解析は実施されておらず、本カードでは異質性と影響要因に関する結論のみを引用する。
  • F19｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 に ego-browser で全国法規データベースを原文と逐語照合）｜basis: law｜period: 現行条文｜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: 条文の引用であり、給付判定ではない。個別項目は健保署の現行公告を基準とする。同じアンカーは VERIFIED-FACTS.md を参照。
  • F20｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 に ego-browser で原文と逐語照合）｜basis: law｜period: 現行条文｜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: 条文の引用であり、法的助言ではない。
  • F21｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 に ego-browser で原文と逐語照合）｜basis: law｜period: 現行条文｜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: 条文の引用であり、法的助言ではない。
  • F22｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 に ego-browser で実地確認。ページ上の提供機関は臺北市政府衛生局）｜basis: official_statement｜period: メタデータ更新 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: 単一県市の例であり、他県市のページは公開前に個別に再検証する。
  • F23｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05 に OP がブラウザーで両検索系統の分類を個別確認。本カードは同じ検証済みアンカーを再利用し、再測定はしていない）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 2026-08-05 の実測時点｜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: 他者の実測記録を再利用したもので、本カードでは再測定していない。用途は誤った照合経路を除外することに限り、費用については述べない。
  • F24｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset｜period: 2025-03～2026-08 の 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: インプレッション数は属性レベルの数値であり、重複排除後の流量ではない。公開用への変換時には本項を出力せず、選題根拠を一文で説明する。
  • F25｜confidence: 構造化整理（編集フレームワーク。外部事実の主張ではない）｜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: 診断ツールでも文献上の結論でもなく、医学的事実として引用してはならない。
  • F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 に ego-browser で全国法規データベースを原文と逐語照合）｜basis: law｜period: 現行条文｜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: 条文の引用であり、法的助言ではない。本カードは金額を一切記載しない。

出典一覧

取得日はすべて 2026-08-06。PubMed 項目は E-utilities の efetch で抄録原文を取得して逐語照合し、各項目ページの HTTP 200 応答も確認した。台湾の法規および公式データセットは ego-browser で実地確認し、原文と逐語照合した。

  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）（取得 2026-08-06。条文原文と逐語照合。本項の日本語説明は仮訳であり、中国語原文が優先）
  20. 醫療法 第 81 條（全國法規資料庫）（取得 2026-08-06。条文原文と逐語照合。本項の日本語説明は仮訳であり、中国語原文が優先）
  21. 醫療法 第 87 條（全國法規資料庫）（取得 2026-08-06。条文原文と逐語照合。本項の日本語説明は仮訳であり、中国語原文が優先）
  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. 他カードで検証済みの事実：`km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`（健保署の医療材料価格比較サイトの 2 系統の分類には歯科が含まれない。2026-08-05 に OP がブラウザーで実測）
  24. 内部データ：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` の #16 付録（検索語×サイト×表示回数をレコード単位で照合可能）
  25. 編集フレームワーク：当サイトのカード間の役割分担に関する声明と、生存率を読むためのフレームワーク（外部出典なし。構造化整理として明記）
  26. 醫療法 第 22 條（全國法規資料庫）（取得 2026-08-06。条文原文と逐語照合。本項の日本語説明は仮訳であり、中国語原文が優先）

内部引用チェーン

  • 修復が必要か、修復方法、う蝕除去の方針：う蝕は必ず充填が必要？充填はどう行う？（KM-DENTAL-12）
  • 修復後いつ食べられるか、いつ磨けるか：充填後、いつ食べ、いつ磨ける？（KM-DENTAL-02）
  • クラウン・義歯に進む場合の見積の読み方：固定性義歯 1 本の費用は？クラウンとブリッジを先に区別する（KM-DENTAL-03）
公開ゲートに関する注意：本カードは draft です。zh-Hans／en／ja を含む 4 言語版がそろうまで km_entries に入れない。F23 は他者の実測を同じアンカーとして継承したもので、可視層で強調する場合は公開前に OP が再測定する。F24 の内部データ項目と frontmatter の表示欄は、2026-08-05 の決定に従って公開用への変換時に削除する。

FAQ

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]。
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].
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]。
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]。
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.

出典アンカー

この記事を引用

km 編輯部・《コンポジットレジンの詰め物は何年もつ？材料はどう選ぶ？｜證據鏈》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-08-13・https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/dental-composite-filling-longevity-evidence

関連記事

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