km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 本文屬於主題館「reports」 →

黏著式（馬里蘭）牙橋是什麼？適合誰？｜證據鏈

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

本頁是〈黏著式（馬里蘭）牙橋是什麼？適合誰？〉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。

黏著式（馬里蘭）牙橋是什麼？適合誰？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事實單元帳）

  • F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28191679，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 平均追蹤 ≥5 年之研究，2017 刊出；2026-08-06 以 PubMed systematic review／meta-analysis 篩選重查（27 筆），未見涵蓋範圍相同（全部黏著式牙橋、≥5 年）之更新版，較新回顧均為次族群專題（F4 陶瓷懸臂式／F8 後牙／F5 非金屬與單固位臂），本卡逐一並列｜geo: universal｜span: 「Meta-analysis of these studies reporting on 2300 RBBs indicated an estimated survival of resin-bonded bridges of 91.4% (95 percent confidence interval [95% CI]: 86.7-94.4%) after 5 years and 82.9% (95% CI: 73.2-89.3%) after 10 years.」「A significantly higher survival rate was reported for RBBs with zirconia framework compared with RBBs from other materials.」「RBBs with one retainer had a significantly higher survival rate (P < 0.0001) and a lower de-bonding rate (P = 0.001) compared with RBBs retained by two or more retainers.」「the survival rate was higher for RBBs inserted in the anterior area of the oral cavity compared with posterior RBBs」「The most frequent complications were de-bonding (loss of retention), which occurred in 15% (95% CI: 10.9-20.6%) and chipping of the veneering material that was reported for 4.1% (95% CI: 1.8-9.5%) of the RBBs over an observation period of 5 years.」｜caveat: 納入 29 篇（含引自前一份回顧的 17 篇）；存活率之計算將重新黏著後仍在位者視為存活，與 F7 的事件定義不同，兩者不可直接相減
  • F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 26875611，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 檢索至 2014-12，2016 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Of 1010 screened articles, one RCT and 4 cohort studies fit the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. All included articles have a high risk of bias.」「Failure rates of single-retainer cantilever RBFDPs were lower than two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.94, P=0.04).」「Metal-ceramic RBFDPs showed no difference of failure rates between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.33-2.63, P=0.89).」「Debonding was not significantly different between cantilever RBFDPs and two-retainer fixed-fixed RBFDPs (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.23-1.60, P=0.32).」｜caveat: 僅 5 篇納入、作者自陳全部高偏誤風險；限前牙區
  • F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28985448，系統性回顧）｜period: 平均追蹤 ≥3 年之研究，2018 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The estimated 5-year survival rate of all-ceramic RBFDPs was 91.2%.」「the estimated 5-year debonding rate and fracture rate were 12.2% and 4.8%, respectively」「Additionally, cantilevered all-ceramic RBFDPs had a higher survival rate (p < 0.01), lower debonding rate, (p < 0.05), and fracture rate (p < 0.01) compared with two-retainer all-ceramic RBFDPs.」「Zirconia ceramic RBFDPs had a lower incidence of failure but a higher debonding rate compared with glass-ceramic RBFDPs (p < 0.01).」「although all-ceramic RBFDPs have a favorable 5-year survival rate, this rate cannot represent the complete success of the treatment, since it may include typical complications such as debonding and fractures」｜caveat: 納入 1 篇隨機對照試驗與 7 篇世代研究；限全瓷材質
  • F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 38623053，系統性回顧）｜period: 檢索至 2023-10，2024 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Twelve studies met the eligibility criteria.」「The pooled data showed a statistically significant decrease in complication events when using cantilever designs compared with double retainer designs (p < 0.05); however, there were no differences found between the two designs in terms of restoration failure.」｜caveat: 限陶瓷懸臂式、前牙區；與 F2 在「失敗率是否有差異」上結論不同，本卡並列不擇一
  • F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42457533，系統性回顧）｜period: 檢索至 2025-11-30，2026-07-16 線上先行刊出＝本卡納入文獻中檢索日期較新者｜geo: universal｜span: 「A comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Ichushi databases up to November 30, 2025 was conducted」「There were no significant differences in survival rate, esthetics, OHRQoL, patient satisfaction, or periodontal condition between non-metal and metal retainer RBFPDs.」「Comparisons involving SR-RBFPDs suggested a tendency toward favorable survival and abutment tooth outcomes; however, these findings were based on a limited number of studies and should be interpreted with caution.」「the current evidence is limited and applies primarily to anterior single-tooth loss」｜caveat: 線上先行刊出（online ahead of print），尚未有卷期頁碼；三組比較各僅納入 8、6、3 篇
  • F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 30302909，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 檢索 1965-01 至 2017-03，2019 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The key words used in the search were: Bridge OR bridges OR fixed partial OR fixed dental AND resin bonded OR Maryland OR ceramic bonded.」「Success was defined as the RBFPDs remaining in situ and not having experienced debonding, biological failures, or mechanical failures at the examination visit.」「Meta analyses of the included studies showed an estimated 5-year success rate of 88.18% for the metal framework RBFPDs and 84.41% for the nonmetal framework RBFPDs.」「The estimated 5-year success rate for each nonmetal material category was 92.07% for zirconia, 94.26% for In-Ceram alumina, and 84.83% for fiber-reinforced composite.」「The failure rate was not statistically significant among the single, double, and multiple retainers RBFPDs (P > .05).」「The 5-year clinical performance of RBFPDs is similar to the performance of conventional fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and implant-supported crowns.」｜caveat: 本卡引用其「成功率」定義下的數字，與 F1／F7 的「存活率」非同一指標；其結論句與 F12 的直接比較研究方向不一致，本卡並列
  • F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28703151，系統性回顧）｜period: 2017 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The predicted survival rate for 5 and 10 years are 83.6% and 64.9%, respectively. Functional survival after rebonding has not been considered in this study.」「Retentive tooth preparation, preparation confined to enamel, silicoating, supra gingival margins, Ni-Cr or Co-Cr alloys and no occlusion on pontic in lateral excursions have been reported to be associated with better survival rates.」「Pooled odds for retention of RBB in anterior segment when compared to posterior is 1.915 (95%CI - 0.847-4.329).」｜caveat: 預後因子為敘述性彙整、非因果推論；前牙相對後牙之信賴區間跨過 1
  • F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42161568，系統性回顧）｜period: 追蹤 ≥5 年之研究，2026-05-19 線上先行刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「A total of 15 out of 283 studies were analyzed statistically based on the inclusion criteria.」「The overall estimated 5-year and 10-year survival rate were 82.77% (95% CI: 75.88-87.85%) and 68.51% (95% CI: 57.57-77.17%), respectively.」「The estimated annual failure rate was 3.78% (95% CI: 2.59-5.52)」「non-cantilevered P-RBFPDs demonstrated nearly twice the estimated annual failure rate compared to two-unit cantilevered P-RBFPDs (4.19% Vs 2.20%)」「Two-unit cantilevered P-RBFPDs exhibited higher estimated survival rates at 5 and 10 years compared to non-cantilevered prostheses, although this difference was not statistically significant.」「The type of prosthesis and framework material did not significantly impact the clinical outcomes.」｜caveat: 限後牙；線上先行刊出，尚未有卷期頁碼
  • F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28688950，前瞻性臨床研究）｜period: 2017 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「One hundred and eight zirconia ceramic cantilever RBFDPs were provided for 87 patients.」「Six debondings and 1 loss of restoration were recorded.」「All debonded RBFDPs were rebonded successfully with no further complications.」「Zirconia ceramic RBFDPs yielded a 10-year survival rate of 98.2% and a success rate of 92.0%.」｜caveat: 單一中心、單一材料與設計（氧化鋯懸臂式）之研究，非統合分析；缺牙原因分三組分析；本卡正文所用「108 座」為該研究全文（PMC 開放取用）之樣本數，非摘要所載，2026-08-08 以 efetch db=pmc 取回全文確認
  • F10｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 32956431，回診世代研究）｜period: 平均追蹤 10.0 年，2020 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Ten patients (mean age 32.4 years) who had received an RBFDP replacing a single anterior tooth were recalled after 10 years.」「Neither technical failures nor biologic complications were observed. All abutment teeth remained vital, and no secondary caries were detected.」「The RBFDP survival rate after a mean follow-up of 10.0 years (range 7.4 to 13.3 years) was 100%.」｜caveat: 樣本僅 10 位病人，本卡僅引用其定性觀察，不引用其存活率百分比，亦不作為幅度推估依據
  • F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 17594374，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 平均追蹤 ≥5 年之研究，2007 刊出（同錨：本站 #3 卡 F8·S4、#34 卡族）｜geo: universal｜span: 「an estimated 5-year survival of conventional tooth-supported FDPs of 93.8%」「after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDPs」「This is compared with 15.7% for conventional FDPs」「For conventional tooth-supported FDPs, the most frequent complications were biological complications like caries and loss of pulp vitality.」「Moreover, after 10 years of function the estimated survival decreased to 89.2% for conventional FDPs, to 80.3% for cantilever FDPs, to 86.7% for implant-supported FDPs, to 77.8% for combined tooth-implant-supported FDPs and to 89.4% for implant-supported SCs.」｜caveat: 本篇之 conventional tooth-supported FDP 指修磨鄰牙做全冠支柱的一般固定牙橋，非黏著式牙橋；本篇之 cantilever FDPs 亦指傳統懸臂式固定假牙，與 F1 至 F8 的懸臂式黏著牙橋不同，兩組數字禁互相套用
  • F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 37605324，比較性臨床研究）｜period: 3 至 5 年檢查，2023 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「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.」「For the RBFDP (test) group there was an 82% survival rate and 18% failure rate」「the ISSC showed a survival rate of 98% and a failure rate of 2%」「The results of this study indicate that ISSCs have lower complication and failure rates than RBFDPs.」「there was a significant reduction in the OHIP-49 scores」｜caveat: 非隨機分派之比較研究，族群限先天缺牙之年輕病人；與 F6 結論句方向不一致，本卡並列
  • F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 31076220，系統性回顧）｜period: 檢索 2017-10 至 2017-11，2019 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Overall, 493 dental implants were placed in 147 patients aged from 3-18 years old with follow-up being from 1-20 years.」「The main complications reported were the infraocclusion positioning of dental implants in the maxillary arch and the rotation of dental implants in the mandibular arch.」「In growing jaws, dental implants require positional modifications, and they should be considered only under special circumstances.」｜caveat: 納入 28 篇、多為個案系列；主要族群為外胚層發育不良與外傷缺牙者
  • F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 25935732，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 檢索 2006 至 2013，2015 刊出（同錨：本站 #3 卡 F7·S3、#34 卡 F17，數字與 span 一致）｜geo: universal｜span: 「an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%)」｜caveat: 對象為多單位牙支撐固定假牙，非黏著式牙橋
  • F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 23062124，系統性回顧與統合分析）｜period: 檢索 2006 至 2011，2012 刊出（同錨：本站 #34 卡 F16，數字與 span 一致）「The survival of implant-supported SCs was 96.3% (95% CI: 94.2-97.6%) after 5 years and 89.4% (95% CI: 82.8-93.6%) after 10 years.」｜geo: universal｜span: 「survival of implants supporting SCs at 5 years amounted to 97.2% (95% CI: 96.3-97.9%), and at 10 years amounted to 95.2%」｜caveat: 納入 46 篇；統計對象為植體本身之存活，與修復體存活為不同指標
  • F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 38706266，系統性回顧）｜period: 檢索 2010 至 2020 之英文文獻，2024 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「A total of 14 studies were reviewed based on the eligibility criteria.」「The results showed that using a cantilever design with one abutment had an advantage over two abutments.」「Debonding, followed by framework fracture, was the leading cause of failure.」｜caveat: 敘述性合成、未做統合分析；限全瓷材質
  • F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 32189627，牙醫史短文）｜period: 2019 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「adhesive-retained fixed partial denture for the replacement of anterior missing teeth in the early 1980s」「Proffered by faculty from the University of Maryland, this tooth replacement was ultimate known as the Maryland Bridge」｜caveat: 屬歷史敘述性短文，非臨床證據；本卡僅用於名稱由來，不用於任何療效或存活陳述
  • F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 39667155，系統性回顧與網絡統合分析）｜period: PROSPERO CRD42023487245，2025 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The systematic search initially produced 1177 studies. At the end 10 studies met the inclusion criteria.」「no significant difference was found regarding the aesthetic results between orthodontic space closure or dental implant」「Tooth-supported dental prostheses for MLIA reported worse scores in the periodontal indexes than orthodontic space closure treatment but the impact of orthodontic and prosthetic treatment on periodontal health remained contentious」｜caveat: 族群限上顎側門齒先天缺牙；「牙齒支撐式假牙」為含黏著式與傳統式的合併類別，不可單獨解讀為黏著式牙橋之結果
  • F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28212978，系統性回顧）｜period: 檢索 1960 年起之文獻，2017 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「The estimated 3- and 5-year survival rates of IRFDPs were 92.6% (95% CI: 85.8-97.6%) and 87.9% (95% CI: 77.4-96.1%), respectively.」「The indications of IRFDPs should be strictly controlled and monitored.」｜caveat: 對象為嵌體固位式固定假牙，與黏著式牙橋為不同術式；納入 1 篇隨機對照試驗與 10 篇前瞻性世代研究
  • F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28356189，系統性回顧）｜period: 檢索 2007-01 至 2015-12，2017 刊出｜geo: universal｜span: 「Nine studies were included, involving placement of 592 FRC FPDs in 463 patients.」「Kaplan-Meier overall survival probability was 94.5% (95%C.I: 92.5%-96.5%) at 4.8 years.」｜caveat: 未能進行統合分析；追蹤期 2 個月至 8 年，長期表現未明
  • F21｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫、條文逐字對得上；同錨 VERIFIED-FACTS）｜basis: law｜period: 現行條文｜geo: TW｜span: 《全民健康保險法》第 51 條「下列項目不列入本保險給付範圍：……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: 個別給付以健保署現行公告為準，本卡不作給付判定
  • F22｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫、條文逐字對得上）｜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
  • F23｜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、詮釋資料更新時間 2026-07-13 16:53）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 資料集現況｜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；資料集不等於個別院所之實際收費，仍須以院所書面明細為準
  • F24｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05 OP 以瀏覽器實測兩軌查詢類別逐項讀取；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；用途僅為排除錯誤的查證管道，不作任何費用陳述
  • F25｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫、條文逐字對得上）｜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
  • F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 實載全國法規資料庫、條文逐字對得上）｜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；本卡之衛教定位依此條
  • F27｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset｜period: 2025-03 至 2026-08 GSC｜geo: TW｜span: backlog #22「黏著式牙橋」「馬里蘭牙橋」「馬利蘭牙橋」「馬利蘭牙橋費用」4 詞項合計曝光 144,762，單站｜caveat: 曝光為資產級數字、非去重流量；發布轉檔時本條整條不輸出（內部數據不進可見層）
  • F28｜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: 「三個名字是同一件事」之用詞對照、cemented FDP 與 resin-bonded bridge 的譯名分辨、以及「適應條件／不利條件」對照表，均為本站依 F1 至 F20 文獻整理的溝通用架構｜caveat: 非臨床判準、非診斷工具，不取代牙醫師評估

來源清單

取用日期均為 2026-08-06；PubMed 條目以 E-utilities efetch 取得摘要原文逐字對照（本卡 span 逐條比對紀錄見交付回報），法規與官方頁以 ego-browser 實載並逐字比對。

  1. Thoma DS, Sailer I, Ioannidis A, Zwahlen M, Makarov N, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1421-1432. PMID 28191679
  2. Wei YR, Wang XD, Zhang Q, et al. Clinical performance of anterior resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses with different framework designs: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;47:1-7. PMID 26875611
  3. Chen J, Cai H, Ren X, Suo L, Pei X, Wan Q. A Systematic Review of the Survival and Complication Rates of All-Ceramic Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(6):535-543. PMID 28985448
  4. Failure and complication rates of different materials, designs, and bonding techniques of ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024;36(10). PMID 38623053
  5. Minakuchi H, Miura S, Shinya A, et al. Treatment efficacy of non-metal and single-retainer resin-bonded prostheses for anterior single-tooth loss: A systematic review. J Prosthodont Res. 2026 Jul 16（online ahead of print）. PMID 42457533
  6. Alraheam IA, Ngoc CN, Wiesen CA, Donovan TE. Five-year success rate of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures: A systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31(1):40-50. PMID 30302909
  7. Balasubramaniam GR. Predictability of resin bonded bridges - a systematic review. Br Dent J. 2017;222(11):849-858. PMID 28703151
  8. Thu KM, Ling Z, Li KY, Botelho MG, Lam WYH. Posterior resin bonded fixed partial denture: A systematic review of five-year clinical outcomes. J Prosthodont Res. 2026 May 19（online ahead of print）. PMID 42161568
  9. Kern M, Passia N, Sasse M, Yazigi C. Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and the influence of the reasons for missing incisors. J Dent. 2017;65:51-55. PMID 28688950
  10. Naenni N, Michelotti G, Lee WZ, Sailer I, Hämmerle CH, Thoma DS. Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses with Zirconia Ceramic Single Retainers Show High Survival Rates and Minimal Tissue Changes After a Mean of 10 Years of Service. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33(5):503-512. PMID 32956431
  11. Pjetursson BE, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18 Suppl 3:97-113. PMID 17594374
  12. Bawa A, Seth-Johansen C, Jensen SS, Gotfredsen K. Resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis versus implant-supported single crowns in the anterior region. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25(6):1197-1206. PMID 37605324
  13. Bohner L, Hanisch M, Kleinheinz J, Jung S. Dental implants in growing patients: a systematic review. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019;57(5):397-406. PMID 31076220
  14. Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Makarov NA, et al. All-ceramic or metal-ceramic tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)? Part II: Multiple-unit FDPs. Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):624-639. PMID 25935732
  15. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23 Suppl 6:2-21. PMID 23062124
  16. Habibzadeh S, Khamisi F, Mosaddad SA, Fernandes GVO, Heboyan A. Full-ceramic resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2024;22:22808000241250118. PMID 38706266
  17. Gutmann JL. The Origin of the Maryland Bridge. J Hist Dent. 2019;67(2):110. PMID 32189627
  18. Migliorati M, Zuffanti A, Capuano M, Canullo L, Caponio VCA, Menini M. Periodontal, occlusal, and aesthetic outcomes of missing maxillary lateral incisor replacement: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Orthod. 2025;23(1):100957. PMID 39667155
  19. Chen J, Cai H, Suo L, Xue Y, Wang J, Wan Q. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2017;59:2-10. PMID 28212978
  20. Ahmed KE, Li KY, Murray CA. Longevity of fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures (FRC FPD) - Systematic review. J Dent. 2017;61:1-11. PMID 28356189
  21. 全民健康保險法 第 51 條（全國法規資料庫）
  22. 醫療法 第 22 條（全國法規資料庫）
  23. 醫療法 第 81 條（全國法規資料庫）
  24. 醫療法 第 87 條（全國法規資料庫）
  25. 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）
  26. 跨卡已驗事實：`km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`（健保署醫材比價網兩軌類別皆不含牙科，2026-08-05 OP 實測）
  27. 內部數據：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` #22 附錄（詞×站×曝光逐筆可對帳）
  28. 編輯框架：本站用詞對照與適應條件整理（無外部來源，標示為結構性整理）

內部引用鏈

  • 報價單怎麼拆成幾塊來讀、固定假牙的三種分流：做一顆固定假牙要多少錢？先分清楚你要做的是牙冠還是牙橋（KM-DENTAL-03）
  • 缺牙不補會發生什麼、補牙的四條路對照：臼齒拔掉可以不補嗎？會怎樣？（KM-DENTAL-34）
  • 植牙這條路的費用組成與變因：植牙一顆到底多少錢？（KM-DENTAL-09）
發布閘門提醒：本卡為 draft。四語（zh-Hans／en／ja）未產前不得進 km_entries；F5 與 F8 為線上先行刊出（online ahead of print）之文獻，正式卷期頁碼出版後應回頭補正引用資訊。

FAQ

黏著式牙橋可以用幾年？
**文獻給的是群體估計值，而且要連著「失敗怎麼定義」一起看。** 一份納入 29 篇研究、2300 座假牙的統合分析估計 5 年存活 91.4%、10 年 82.9% [F1]；另一份不把重新黏回計入功能性存活的回顧，估計 5 年 83.6%、10 年 64.9% [F7]。以「成功率」為指標的統合分析則估計 5 年金屬框架 88.18%、非金屬框架 84.41% [F6]。個別能用多久取決於位置、設計、鄰牙條件與咬合，須由牙醫師評估。
接着性ブリッジは何年使えますか？ — **文献は人群の推定値であり、「失敗」の定義と一緒に読む必要があります。** 29 件・2300 装置の統合分析は 5 年 91.4%、10 年 82.9% [F1]、再接着後の機能的生存を含めないレビューは 5 年 83.6%、10 年 64.9% [F7]、成功率の統合分析は 5 年で金属 88.18%、非金属 84.41% [F6] としました。個人での期間は部位、設計、隣在歯、咬合によるため、歯科医師の評価が必要です。
How many years can a resin-bonded bridge last? — **Literature provides group estimates, which must be read with the definition of failure.** A meta-analysis of 29 studies and 2300 bridges estimated 91.4% survival at 5 years and 82.9% at 10 years [F1]. Another review that did not count functional survival after rebonding estimated 83.6% at 5 years and 64.9% at 10 years [F7]. A meta-analysis using success rate estimated 5-year success of 88.18% for metal frameworks and 84.41% for non-metal frameworks [F6]. Individual duration depends on site, design, neighbouring teeth, and occlusion, and must be assessed by a dentist.
做黏著式牙橋一定要磨牙嗎？磨多少？
**修磨量比傳統牙橋小，但不是完全不動齒質。** 一份整理預後因子的回顧記錄，具固位形的預備、修磨侷限在琺瑯質以內、齒齦上緣的邊界都與較佳的存活率相關 [F7]。相對地，傳統牙橋是把兩側鄰牙修磨成支柱牙、套上牙冠 [F11]。實際要修磨多少，取決於鄰牙形態與咬合空間，須由牙醫師檢查後決定。
必ず歯を削りますか？どのくらいですか？ — **従来型ブリッジより切削は少ないものの、歯質にまったく手を加えないわけではありません。** 保持形態、エナメル質内の形成、歯肉縁上マージンはより良い生存と関連しました [F7]。従来型ブリッジは両側の隣在歯を支台として削り冠を被せます [F11]。必要な切削量は歯の形と咬合スペースを検査して決めます。
Does a resin-bonded bridge always require tooth preparation? How much? — **It generally requires less preparation than a conventional bridge, but does not leave tooth structure completely untouched.** A review of prognostic factors records retentive tooth preparation, preparation confined to enamel, and supragingival margins as associated with better survival [F7]. In contrast, a conventional bridge prepares neighbouring teeth as abutment teeth and covers them with crowns [F11]. The amount of preparation depends on tooth form and occlusal space and needs examination by a dentist.
掉下來了怎麼辦？
**脫落是這種假牙常見的併發症，處理方式是回診。** 整體回顧估計 5 年脫落率 15% [F1]，全瓷回顧估計 12.2% [F3]。一項 108 座假牙的單一中心臨床研究記錄 6 次脫落，在該研究內都重新黏著成功、未再出現併發症 [F9]；這不代表每一次脫落都能重新黏回。掉下來之後鄰牙表面與假牙的狀態需要檢查，是否能重新黏著、要不要改做其他方式，須由牙醫師判斷。
外れたらどうすればよいですか？ — **脱離はよくある合併症で、対応は受診です。** 全体レビューは 5 年 15% [F1]、オールセラミックレビューは 12.2% [F3] と推定しました。108 装置の単施設研究の 6 回はすべて再接着に成功しましたが [F9]、毎回再接着できることを意味しません。隣在歯と補綴物の状態を調べ、再接着か別の方法かを歯科医師が判断します。
What if it comes off? — **Debonding is a common complication of this prosthesis; the response is to return for care.** The overall review estimated 15% debonding at 5 years [F1], and the all-ceramic review estimated 12.2% [F3]. A single-centre clinical study of 108 bridges recorded 6 debondings, all successfully rebonded in that study without further complications [F9]; that does not mean every debonding can be rebonded. The surfaces of the neighbouring teeth and prosthesis need examination before a dentist decides whether rebonding or another approach is needed.

來源錨定

引用本文

km 編輯部・《黏著式（馬里蘭）牙橋是什麼？適合誰？｜證據鏈》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-08-13・https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/dental-resin-bonded-bridge-evidence

相關文章

更新 2026-08-13T14:17:35.501Z · server-rendered · four-language · IDAEO 知識庫