Browning W D, Brackett W W, Gilpatrick R O
Medical College of Georgia, School of Dentistry, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Augusta 30912-1260, USA.
Oper Dent. 1999 Jan-Feb;24(1):26-30.
This double-blind clinical trial was undertaken to compare the retention rate of restorative materials with contrasting stiffness in noncarious class 5 lesions. All restorations were placed using retraction cord and cotton roll isolation to more closely mimic the general practice setting. Thirty subjects with at least two lesions were recruited to participate in the study. Each subject received one restoration using Silux Plus and one using Z100. The assignment of material was randomized, and the subjects were unaware of which tooth had received which material. All restorations were placed with a fourth-generation adhesive liner, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose. Evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, and 12 months by two independent examiners unaware of the restoration's group identity. The restorations were evaluated using criteria developed by Cvar and Ryge in a forced-consensus model. Despite the fact that the two materials have widely different elastic modulus values, after 12 months no difference between the retention rates for the two groups was found, and both groups of restorations performed very well.
这项双盲临床试验旨在比较具有不同硬度的修复材料在非龋性5类洞型中的保留率。所有修复体的放置均采用缩龈线和棉卷隔离，以更贴近全科医疗环境。招募了30名至少有两个洞型的受试者参与该研究。每位受试者分别接受了一次使用Silux Plus材料和一次使用Z100材料的修复。材料的分配是随机的，受试者不知道哪颗牙齿接受了哪种材料。所有修复体均使用第四代粘结性衬层材料Scotchbond Multi-Purpose进行放置。由两名不知道修复体分组情况的独立检查者在基线、6个月和12个月时进行评估。修复体采用Cvar和Ryge制定的标准在强制共识模型中进行评估。尽管这两种材料的弹性模量值差异很大，但12个月后两组的保留率没有差异，两组修复体的表现都非常好。
