km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 本文属于主题馆「reports」 →

黏着式（马里兰）牙桥是什么？适合谁？｜證據鏈

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

本頁是〈黏着式（马里兰）牙桥是什么？适合谁？〉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。

黏着式（马里兰）牙桥是什么？适合谁？｜證據鏈

F-Units（事实单元账）

  • F1｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28191679，系统性回顾与统合分析）｜period: 平均随访 ≥5 年的研究，2017 刊出；2026-08-06 以 PubMed systematic review／meta-analysis 筛选复查（27 条），未见相同范围（全部黏着式牙桥、≥5 年）的更新版；较新回顾均为次人群专题（F4 陶瓷悬臂式／F8 后牙／F5 非金属与单固位翼），本卡逐一并列｜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: 纳入 29 篇（含前一回顾的 17 篇）；其存留计算将重新黏着后仍在位者视为存留，与 F7 事件定义不同，二者不可直接相减
  • F2｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 26875611，系统性回顾与统合分析）｜period: 检索至 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: 仅 5 篇纳入，作者说明全部高偏倚风险；限前牙区
  • F3｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28985448，系统性回顾）｜period: 平均随访 ≥3 年的研究，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: 纳入 1 篇随机对照试验与 7 篇队列研究；限全瓷材料
  • F4｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 38623053，系统性回顾）｜period: 检索至 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: 限前牙区陶瓷悬臂式；与 F2 对“失败率有无差异”结论不同，本卡并列不择一
  • F5｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42457533，系统性回顾）｜period: 检索至 2025-11-30，2026-07-16 online ahead of print 刊出＝本卡文献中检索日期较新者｜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: online ahead of print，尚无卷期页码；三组比较分别仅纳入 8、6、3 篇
  • F6｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 30302909，系统性回顾与统合分析）｜period: 检索 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”定义的数字，与 F1／F7“存留率”不是同一指标；其结论与 F12 直接比较方向不同，本卡并列
  • F7｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28703151，系统性回顾）｜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: 预后因素为叙述性汇整，非因果推论；前牙相对后牙的置信区间跨过 1
  • F8｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 42161568，系统性回顾）｜period: 随访 ≥5 年的研究，2026-05-19 online ahead of print 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: 限后牙；online ahead of print，尚无卷期页码
  • F9｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28688950，前瞻性临床研究）｜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: 单一中心、单一材料与设计（氧化锆悬臂式），非统合分析；缺牙原因分三组分析；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，回诊队列研究）｜period: 平均随访 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: 样本仅 10 位患者；本卡只引用定性观察，不引用其存留率百分比，也不作为幅度估计依据
  • F11｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 17594374，系统性回顾与统合分析）｜period: 平均随访 ≥5 年的研究，2007 刊出（同锚：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: 本文 conventional tooth-supported FDP 指预备邻牙为全冠支台的传统固定牙桥，非黏着式牙桥；其 cantilever FDPs 也指传统悬臂式固定假牙，和 F1 至 F8 的悬臂式黏着牙桥不同，两组数字不可互套
  • F12｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 37605324，比较性临床研究）｜period: 3 至 5 年检查，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: 非随机分配的比较研究，限先天缺牙的年轻患者；与 F6 结论方向不一致，本卡并列
  • F13｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 31076220，系统性回顾）｜period: 检索 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: 纳入 28 篇，多为病例系列；主要人群为外胚层发育不良或外伤缺牙者
  • F14｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 25935732，系统性回顾与统合分析）｜period: 检索 2006 至 2013，2015 刊出（同锚：本站 #3 卡 F7·S3、#34 卡 F17，数字和 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: 对象为多单位牙支持固定假牙，非黏着式牙桥
  • F15｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 23062124，系统性回顾与统合分析）｜period: 检索 2006 至 2011，2012 刊出（同锚：本站 #34 卡 F16，数字和 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: 纳入 46 篇；统计对象为种植体本身存留，与修复体存留是不同指标
  • F16｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 38706266，系统性回顾）｜period: 检索 2010 至 2020 年英文文献，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: 叙述性合成，未做统合分析；限全瓷材料
  • F17｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 32189627，牙科史短文）｜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: 历史叙述短文，非临床证据；本卡仅用于名称由来，不用于疗效或存留陈述
  • F18｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 39667155，系统性回顾与网络统合分析）｜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: 限上颌侧切牙先天缺牙；“牙支持假牙”含黏着式与传统式的合并类别，不可单独解读为黏着式牙桥结果
  • F19｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28212978，系统性回顾）｜period: 检索 1960 年起文献，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: 对象为嵌体固位式固定假牙，与黏着式牙桥是不同术式；纳入 1 篇随机对照试验和 10 篇前瞻性队列研究
  • F20｜confidence: verified｜basis: peer_reviewed（PMID 28356189，系统性回顾）｜period: 检索 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: 未能进行统合分析；随访期 2 个月至 8 年，长期表现不明
  • F21｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载全国法规资料库、逐字对照；同锚 VERIFIED-FACTS）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜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: 个别给付以健保署现行公告为准，本卡不作给付判定
  • F22｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载全国法规资料库、逐字对照）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 22 條「醫療機構收取醫療費用，應開給載明收費項目及金額之收據。醫療機構不得違反收費標準，超額或擅立收費項目收費。」｜caveat: 引用条文，非法律意见；本卡不列任何金额
  • F23｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载，页面显示提供机关为台北市政府卫生局，元数据更新时间 2026-07-13 16:53）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 数据集现况｜geo: TW｜span: 政府資料開放平臺資料集「臺北市醫療收費標準」，提供機關臺北市政府衛生局｜caveat: 单一县市例证，其他县市页面须在放量前逐一补验；数据集不等于个别院所实际收费，仍以院所书面明细为准
  • F24｜confidence: verified（2026-08-05 OP 以浏览器实测逐项读取两轨查询类别；本卡沿用同锚，未重验）｜basis: official_statement｜period: 2026-08-05 实测现况｜geo: TW｜span: 健保署醫材比價網兩軌查詢類別皆不含牙科，頁面全文無牙字（查證紀錄見 km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md）｜caveat: 沿用他人实测记录，本卡未重新量测；用途仅为排除错误查证渠道，不作任何费用陈述
  • F25｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载全国法规资料库、逐字对照）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 81 條「醫療機構診治病人時，應向病人或其法定代理人、配偶、親屬或關係人告知其病情、治療方針、處置、用藥、預後情形及可能之不良反應。」｜caveat: 引用条文，非法律意见
  • F26｜confidence: verified（2026-08-06 以 ego-browser 实载全国法规资料库、逐字对照）｜basis: law｜period: 现行条文｜geo: TW｜span: 《醫療法》第 87 條「廣告內容暗示或影射醫療業務者，視為醫療廣告。醫學新知或研究報告之發表、病人衛生教育、學術性刊物，未涉及招徠醫療業務者，不視為醫療廣告。」｜caveat: 引用条文，非法律意见；本卡卫生教育定位依此条
  • 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: 曝光为资产级数字，非去重流量；发布转档时本条整条不输出（内部数据不进入可见层）
  • F28｜confidence: 结构性整理（编辑框架，非外部事实宣称）｜basis: editorial_framework｜period: 2026-08-06｜geo: universal｜span: 「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: 非临床判据、非诊断工具，不代替牙医师评估

来源清单

取用日期均为 2026-08-06；PubMed 条目以 E-utilities efetch 取得摘要原文逐字对照（本卡 span 逐条比对记录见交付回报），法规与官方页面以 ego-browser 实载并逐字比对。

  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《全民健康保险法》第 51 条（全国法规资料库）
  22. 台湾《医疗法》第 22 条（全国法规资料库）
  23. 台湾《医疗法》第 81 条（全国法规资料库）
  24. 台湾《医疗法》第 87 条（全国法规资料库）
  25. 政府数据开放平台：臺北市醫療收費標準（提供机关：台北市政府卫生局）
  26. 跨卡已验证事实：`km-compliance/VERIFIED-FACTS.md`（健保署醫材比價網两轨类别都不含牙科，2026-08-05 OP 实测）
  27. 内部数据：`analysis/reports/km-dental-backlog.md` #22 附录（词×站×曝光逐笔可对账）
  28. 编辑框架：本站术语对照和适应条件整理（无外部来源，标为结构性整理）

内部引用链

  • 报价单怎么拆成几块来读、固定假牙的三种分流：做一颗固定假牙要多少钱？先分清你要做的是牙冠还是牙桥（KM-DENTAL-03）
  • 缺牙不补会发生什么、补牙的四条路对照：臼齿拔掉可以不补吗？会怎样？（KM-DENTAL-34）
  • 种植牙这条路的费用组成与变量：种植牙一颗到底多少钱？（KM-DENTAL-09）
发布闸门提醒：本卡为 draft。zh-Hans／en／ja 三语未产前不得进入 km_entries；F5 与 F8 为 online ahead of print 文献，正式卷期页码出版后应回头补正引文信息。

FAQ

黏着式牙桥可以用几年？
**文献给的是人群估计值，必须连同“失败如何定义”一起看。** 29 篇、2300 座假牙的统合分析估计 5 年存留 91.4%、10 年 82.9% [F1]；另一份不计重新黏回后功能性存留的回顾估计 5 年 83.6%、10 年 64.9% [F7]。以成功率衡量的统合分析估计 5 年金属框架 88.18%、非金属框架 84.41% [F6]。个人能用多久取决于位置、设计、邻牙和咬合，须由牙医师评估。
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.
做黏着式牙桥一定要磨牙吗？磨多少？
**预备量比传统牙桥小，但不是完全不动牙体组织。** 预后因素回顾记录，具固位形的预备、预备限于牙釉质、龈上边缘均与较好存留有关 [F7]；传统牙桥则将两侧邻牙预备为支台、套上牙冠 [F11]。实际预备多少取决于邻牙形态和咬合空间，须经牙医师检查决定。
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.
掉下来了怎么办？
**脱落是这类假牙常见并发症，处理方式是回诊。** 整体回顾估计 5 年脱落率 15% [F1]，全瓷回顾为 12.2% [F3]。108 座的单中心研究记录 6 次脱落，研究内都重新黏着成功、未再出现并发症 [F9]；这不代表每次都能重新黏回。掉下后须检查邻牙表面和假牙状态，由牙医师判断能否重新黏着或需改用其他方法。
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.

来源锚定

引用本文

km 編輯部・《黏着式（马里兰）牙桥是什么？适合谁？｜證據鏈》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-08-13・https://km.idaeo.ai/reports/dental-resin-bonded-bridge-evidence

相关文章

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