18 August 2022: Clinical Research
A 3-Year Clinical Evaluation of Endodontically Treated Posterior Teeth Restored with Resin Nanoceramic Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacture (CAD/CAM)-Fabricated Partial Crowns
Lei Zhang 1E , Xiao-Xia Hou 2C , Maihefuzi Aishan 3B , Meng-Ting Tian 3B , Hui-Yu He 1A*DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937331
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937331
Table 5 Survival (failure=debonding) distributions and test results according to categorical clinical factors.
| Variable | Reevaluated | Mean time (months) | Survival percentage (%) | P value | Hazard ratio | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | 0.68 | 0.77 (0.22, 2.71) | ||||
| Male | 72 | 34.51 (33.29, 35.73) | 91.7% | |||
| Female | 60 | 34.82 (33.62, 36.02) | 93.3% | |||
| Age | 0.89 | 1.00 (0.93,1.07) | ||||
| Tooth distribution | 0.21 | 3.46 (0.44,27.32) | ||||
| Premolar | 35 | 35.64 (34.97, 36.33) | 97.1% | |||
| Molar | 97 | 34.28 (33.14, 35.42) | 90.7% | |||
| Arch distribution | 0.21 | 0.43 (0.11, 1.67) | ||||
| Maxillary | 67 | 34.02 (32.55, 35.49) | 89.6% | |||
| Mandibular | 65 | 35.31 (34.49, 36.14) | 95.4% | |||
| Coverage of cusps COX Regression Method = Enter Indicator (first) | 0.25 | |||||
| 1 | 21 | 35.40 (34.25, 36.55) | ||||
| 2 | 62 | 35.42 (34.62, 36.21) | 0. 75 | 0.68 (0.06, 7.47) | ||
| 3 | 21 | 33.56 (30.71, 36.40) | 0.33 | 3.06 (0.32, 29.44) | ||
| ≥4 | 28 | 33.27 (30.63, 35.95) | 0. 32 | 3.06 (0.34, 27.37) | ||
| Material | 0.01* | 9.22 (1.17,72.74) | ||||
| LDGC | 66 | 35.73 (35.21, 36.26) | 98.5% | |||
| RNC | 66 | 33.61 (32.03, 35.18) | 86.4% | |||
| Cement | 0.71 | 1.27 (0.36, 4.49) | ||||
| Variolink N | 59 | 34.97 (33.96, 35.97) | 93.2% | |||
| Multilink N | 73 | 34.40 (33.07, 35.72) | 91.8% | |||
| * The factor of restoration material: =0.01, hazard ratio=9.22 (1.17,72.74). RNC – resin nanoceramic; LDGC – lithium disilicate-based glass ceramic. | ||||||