Brackett W W, Browning W D, Ross J A, Gregory P N, Owens B M
Department of Adult Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Lincoln 68583-0750, USA.
Am J Dent. 1999 Jun;12(3):119-22.
This study was undertaken to compare the clinical performance of a polyacid-modified resin-based composite and a resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative material over 1 year.
Thirty-four pairs of restorations of Compoglass (C) and Fuji II LC (F) were placed in 31 patients, with no patient receiving more than two pairs, and with materials assigned at random within the pairs. Caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions of the facial surface were restored without tooth preparation according to manufacturers' instructions, except that tooth structure to be restored was etched with 37% phosphoric acid prior to placement of Compoglass. Restorations were clinically evaluated by two blinded examiners at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year, using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria. Restorations receiving a score of "Charlie" in either retention or secondary caries were classified as failed restorations. The incidence of failures was statistically analyzed as a pairwise comparison, using an exact binomial test.
Thirty-one pairs of restorations were available for recall at 1 year. The percentage of Alfa scores for each material in each category were: Retention (C = 84%, F = 100%), Color match (C = 81%, F = 100%), Marginal discoloration (C = 78%, F = 97%), Secondary caries (C = 88%, F = 100%), Anatomic form (C = 92%, F = 100%), and Marginal adaptation (C = 26%, F = 46%). Except for the failed restorations, no other Charlie scores were assigned. A significant difference in the incidence of failed restorations was found between the materials (P = 0.01).
本研究旨在比较一种聚酸改性树脂基复合材料和一种树脂改性玻璃离子修复材料在1年时间内的临床性能。
为31名患者放置了34对Compoglass（C）和Fuji II LC（F）修复体，每位患者接受的修复体不超过两对，且在每对修复体中材料随机分配。根据制造商的说明，对面部无龋的颈部侵蚀/磨损病变进行修复，无需进行牙体预备，但在放置Compoglass之前，要用37%的磷酸蚀刻待修复的牙体组织。由两名不知情的检查者在基线、6个月和1年时，使用改良的Ryge/USPHS标准对修复体进行临床评估。在固位或继发龋方面得分为“C”的修复体被归类为失败修复体。使用精确二项式检验，将失败率作为成对比较进行统计学分析。
1年后有31对修复体可供复查。每种材料在每个类别中的Alfa评分百分比分别为：固位（C = 84%，F = 100%）、颜色匹配（C = 81%，F = 100%）、边缘变色（C = 78%，F = 97%）、继发龋（C = 88%，F = 100%）、解剖形态（C = 92%，F = 100%）和边缘密合性（C = 26%，F = 46%）。除了失败的修复体，没有其他“C”评分。两种材料在失败修复体的发生率上存在显著差异（P = 0.01）。
