km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 本記事はテーマ館「reports」の所蔵です →

接着性（メリーランド）ブリッジとは？誰に向く？｜證據鏈

km 編輯部2026-08-13約48分で読了
#證據鏈#牙醫KM#牙橋#植牙

本頁是〈接着性（メリーランド）ブリッジとは？誰に向く？〉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。

接着性（メリーランド）ブリッジとは？誰に向く？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事実単位台帳）

  • F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28191679、系統的レビューと統合分析）｜period: 平均追跡 ≥5 年の研究、2017 年刊行。2026-08-06 に PubMed systematic review／meta-analysis フィルタで再確認（27 件）；同一範囲（全接着性ブリッジ、≥5 年）の更新版はなく、より新しいレビューは次人群テーマ（F4 セラミック片持ち／F8 後方歯／F5 非金属と一本リテーナー）で、本カードでは個別に併記｜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: 29 件（先行レビューからの 17 件を含む）。再接着後も残るものを生存とする計算で、F7 のイベント定義とは異なり、直接差し引けない
  • F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 26875611、系統的レビューと統合分析）｜period: 2014-12 まで検索、2016 年刊行｜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: 採用は 5 件のみ、全件が高バイアスリスク、前歯部に限定
  • F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28985448、系統的レビュー）｜period: 平均追跡 ≥3 年の研究、2018 年刊行｜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: 無作為化比較試験 1 件とコホート 7 件を採用、オールセラミックに限定
  • F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 38623053、系統的レビュー）｜period: 2023-10 まで検索、2024 年刊行｜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: 前歯部のセラミック片持ちに限定。失敗率差について F2 と結論が異なるため、本カードでは選ばず併記
  • F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42457533、系統的レビュー）｜period: 2025-11-30 まで検索、2026-07-16 online ahead of print 刊行＝本カードで検索日が最も新しい文献｜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: online ahead of print で巻号頁なし。三比較は各 8、6、3 件のみ
  • F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 30302909、系統的レビューと統合分析）｜period: 1965-01 から 2017-03 を検索、2019 年刊行｜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: 「成功率」は F1／F7 の「生存率」と異なる指標。結論は F12 の直接比較と方向が異なるため併記
  • F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28703151、系統的レビュー）｜period: 2017 年刊行｜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: 予後因子は叙述的統合で因果推論ではない。前歯対臼歯の信頼区間は 1 をまたぐ
  • F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42161568、系統的レビュー）｜period: 追跡 ≥5 年の研究、2026-05-19 online ahead of print 刊行｜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: 後方歯に限定、online ahead of print で巻号頁なし
  • F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28688950、前向き臨床研究）｜period: 2017 年刊行｜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: 単施設・単一材料・単一設計（ジルコニア片持ち）の研究で統合分析ではない。欠損原因は三群で解析；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、回診コホート研究）｜period: 平均追跡 10.0 年、2020 年刊行｜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: 10 人のみ。本カードは定性的観察のみを引用し、生存率割合や大きさの推定根拠にはしない
  • F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 17594374、系統的レビューと統合分析）｜period: 平均追跡 ≥5 年の研究、2007 年刊行（同一アンカー：本サイト #3 カード F8·S4、#34 カード群）｜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: conventional tooth-supported FDP は隣在歯を全冠支台に削る従来型固定性ブリッジで、接着性ではない。同論文の cantilever FDP も従来型で F1～F8 の片持ち接着性ブリッジとは異なり、数値を相互に当てはめない
  • F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 37605324、比較臨床研究）｜period: 3～5 年で検査、2023 年刊行｜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: 先天性歯欠損の若年者に限った非無作為比較。F6 と方向が異なるため併記
  • F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 31076220、系統的レビュー）｜period: 2017-10 から 2017-11 を検索、2019 年刊行｜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: 28 件を採用、主に症例系列。主な人群は外胚葉異形成または外傷後欠損
  • F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 25935732、系統的レビューと統合分析）｜period: 2006～2013 を検索、2015 年刊行（同一アンカー：本サイト #3 カード F7·S3、#34 カード F17、数値と span は一致）｜geo: universal｜span: 「an estimated 5-year survival rate of metal-ceramic FDPs of 94.4% (95% CI: 91.2-96.5%)」｜caveat: 多単位歯支持型固定性補綴が対象で、接着性ブリッジではない
  • F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 23062124、系統的レビューと統合分析）｜period: 2006～2011 を検索、2012 年刊行（同一アンカー：本サイト #34 カード F16、数値と span は一致）「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: 46 件を採用。統計対象はインプラント本体の生存で、補綴物生存とは別指標
  • F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 38706266、系統的レビュー）｜period: 2010～2020 年の英語文献を検索、2024 年刊行｜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: 統合分析なしの叙述的統合、オールセラミックに限定
  • F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 32189627、歯科史短文）｜period: 2019 年刊行｜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: 歴史的叙述で臨床証拠ではない。名称由来にのみ使用し、有効性・生存の主張には用いない
  • F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 39667155、系統的レビューとネットワーク統合分析）｜period: PROSPERO CRD42023487245、2025 年刊行｜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: 上顎側切歯の先天欠如に限定。「歯支持型補綴」は接着性と従来型を合わせた分類で、接着性単独の結果と読めない
  • F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28212978、系統的レビュー）｜period: 1960 年以降の文献を検索、2017 年刊行｜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: インレー保持型固定性補綴が対象で接着性ブリッジとは別術式。無作為化比較試験 1 件、前向きコホート 10 件を採用
  • F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28356189、系統的レビュー）｜period: 2007-01 から 2015-12 を検索、2017 年刊行｜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: 統合分析はできず、追跡は 2 か月～8 年で長期成績は不明
  • F21｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06、ego-browser で全国法規資料庫を実載し条文と逐字照合；同一アンカー VERIFIED-FACTS）｜basis: law｜period: 現行条文｜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: 個別給付は健保署の現行告示による。本カードは給付判定をしない
  • F22｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06、ego-browser で全国法規資料庫を実載し条文と逐字照合）｜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: 条文引用で法律見解ではない。金額は示さない
  • F23｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06、ego-browser 実載。提供機関は臺北市政府衛生局、メタデータ更新は 2026-07-13 16:53 と表示）｜basis: official_statement｜period: データセットの現況｜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: 一県市の例。他県市の頁は拡大前に個別確認が必要。データセットは個別院所の実際の請求額ではなく、院所の書面明細を優先する
  • F24｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05、OP がブラウザで二つの検索トラックのカテゴリを項目ごとに実測。本カードは同一アンカーを再利用し再測定していない）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 2026-08-05 の実測現況｜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: 他者の実測記録の再利用で本カードは再測定していない。誤った確認経路を除外する目的のみで、費用主張はしない
  • F25｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06、ego-browser で全国法規資料庫を実載し条文と逐字照合）｜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: 条文引用で法律見解ではない
  • F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06、ego-browser で全国法規資料庫を実載し条文と逐字照合）｜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: 条文引用で法律見解ではない。本カードの衛生教育としての位置付けは同条による
  • F27｜confidence: verified｜basis: internal_dataset｜period: 2025-03 から 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: 曝光は資産レベルの数値で重複除外済み流量ではない。公開変換時はこのユニット全体を出力しない（内部データを可視層に出さない）
  • F28｜confidence: 編集上の整理（編集枠組み、外部事実の主張ではない）｜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: 臨床判定基準・診断ツールではなく、歯科医師の評価を代替しない

出典一覧

取用日はすべて 2026-08-06。PubMed 条目は E-utilities efetch で抄録原文を取得して逐字照合し、法規・公式頁は ego-browser で実載して逐字照合しました。

  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. 台湾《全民健康保險法》第 51 条（全国法規資料庫）
  22. 台湾医療法第 22 条（全国法規資料庫）
  23. 台湾医療法第 81 条（全国法規資料庫）
  24. 台湾医療法第 87 条（全国法規資料庫）
  25. 政府データ公開プラットフォーム：臺北市醫療收費標準（提供機関：臺北市政府衛生局）
  26. 他カードで検証済みの事実：`km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`（健保署医材比価網の両検索トラックはいずれも歯科を含まない。2026-08-05 OP 実測）
  27. 内部データ：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` #22 付録（語×サイト×曝光を行ごとに照合可能）
  28. 編集枠組み：本サイトの用語対照と適応条件整理（外部出典なし、編集上の整理と表示）

内部引用チェーン

  • 見積もりを構成要素に分ける読み方、固定性補綴の三つの分岐：固定性補綴を 1 本作る費用は？クラウンかブリッジかを先に区別（KM-DENTAL-03）
  • 臼歯を抜いたままにすると何が起きるか、補う四つの方法：臼歯を抜いたあと補わなくてもよい？どうなる？（KM-DENTAL-34）
  • インプラントの費用構成と変数：インプラント 1 本は結局いくら？（KM-DENTAL-09）
公開ゲートの注意：本カードは draft です。zh-Hans／en／ja がそろうまで km_entries に入れてはいけません。F5 と F8 は online ahead of print 文献であり、正式な巻号頁が出たら引用情報を修正してください。

FAQ

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。
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.
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。
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.
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。
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.

出典アンカー

この記事を引用

km 編輯部・《接着性（メリーランド）ブリッジとは？誰に向く？｜證據鏈》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-08-13・https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/dental-resin-bonded-bridge-evidence

関連記事

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