Marks L A, van Amerongen W E, Borgmeijer P J, Groen H J, Martens L C
Department of Cariology, Endodontology, Pedodontology at Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), The Netherlands.
ASDC J Dent Child. 2000 Jan-Feb;67(1):37-41, 8-9.
The aim of the present clinical study was an in vivo evaluation of an improved conventional glass ionomer cement Ketac Molar (ESPE), compared to a polyacid modified composite resin, Dyract (Dentsply/De Trey), used in primary molars. Fifty-three Ketac Molar and fifty-two Dyract restorations were placed in box-only preparations in primary molars. The application time for the chemically cured Ketac Molar, was longer compared to the light-cured Dyract. In comparing the materials, no differences were found, comparing both materials regarding secondary caries, marginal adaptation, wear and fracture toughness. One case of recurrent caries adjacent to a Ketac Molar restoration and two cases in the Dyract group were reported. Two Ketac Molar restorations and one Dyract showed bulk fracture at the time of evaluation. At the twelve-month evaluation, no difference between the investigated materials was registered, which indicates that Ketac Molar can be used as a proximal restoration in the primary dentition. It should be emphasized, however, that one-year data should not be extrapolated to indicate the long-term success of restorations.
本临床研究的目的是对改良型传统玻璃离子水门汀Ketac Molar(ESPE)与用于乳磨牙的聚酸改性复合树脂Dyract(登士柏/德瑞)进行体内评估。在乳磨牙的仅箱状预备中分别放置了53个Ketac Molar修复体和52个Dyract修复体。化学固化的Ketac Molar的应用时间比光固化的Dyract更长。在比较这两种材料时,就继发龋、边缘适应性、磨损和断裂韧性而言,未发现二者存在差异。据报告,Ketac Molar修复体旁有1例继发龋,Dyract组有2例。在评估时,有2个Ketac Molar修复体和1个Dyract出现大块折断。在12个月的评估中,未发现所研究材料之间存在差异,这表明Ketac Molar可用作乳牙列的邻面修复材料。然而,应该强调的是,不应将一年的数据外推以表明修复体的长期成功情况。