Loguercio A D, Reis A, Rodrigues Filho L E, Busato A L
Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia, Departmento de Materiais Dentários, Brazil.
Oper Dent. 2001 Sep-Oct;26(5):427-34.
This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after one year. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. Each patient received at least five restorations. The tested materials were: (1) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (2) ALERT + Bond-1; (3) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT (4) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and; (5) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass ionomer cement. In shallow and medium cavities, no protection was performed except for the respective adhesive system used in each group. Each adhesive system and resin composite was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according to the USPHS modified criteria. All patients attended the one-year recall, and the 84 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. The scores were submitted to statistical analysis (Chi-square test, p<0.05). Solitaire and TPH showed some fractures at marginal ridges. Solitaire, ALERT and TPH showed some concerns related to color match and surface texture. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after one year.
本研究评估了四种可压实树脂复合修复材料与一种混合复合树脂材料相比，在一年后用于后牙（I类和II类洞）的临床性能。在16名患者中放置了84个修复体。每位患者至少接受了五个修复体。测试材料为：（1）Solitaire + Solid Bond；（2）ALERT + Bond-1；（3）Surefil + Prime & Bond NT；（4）Filtek P60 + Single Bond；以及（5）TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1。所有修复体均采用橡皮障隔离制作，洞形设计仅限于去除龋坏组织。较深的洞用氢氧化钙和/或玻璃离子水门汀覆盖。在浅洞和中等深度的洞中，除了每组使用的相应粘结系统外，未进行其他保护措施。每种粘结系统和树脂复合材料均按照制造商的说明放置。一周后，修复体完成/抛光，并根据美国公共卫生服务部（USPHS）修改后的标准进行评估。所有患者均参加了一年后的复查，此时根据相同的评估标准对84个修复体进行了评估。将评分结果进行统计分析（卡方检验，p<0.05）。Solitaire和TPH在边缘嵴处出现了一些折裂。Solitaire、ALERT和TPH在颜色匹配和表面质地方面存在一些问题。Surefil和Filtek P60在一年后表现出优异的临床性能。
