Suppr超能文献

采用三种微创方法放置的咬合面银汞合金和玻璃离子修复体的六年成功率。

Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches.

作者信息

Mandari G J, Frencken J E, van't Hof M A

机构信息

Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

出版信息

Caries Res. 2003 Jul-Aug;37(4):246-53. doi: 10.1159/000070866.

Abstract

The present randomised clinical trial was aimed at comparing three minimally invasive restorative treatment approaches for managing dental caries in occlusal surfaces using a non-gamma-2 amalgam and a low-viscosity glass-ionomer as the restorative material. The treatment approaches tested in parallel groups were: conventional in a university setting, modified-conventional and ultraconservative (Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, ART) approaches in a field setting. A split-mouth design was used in which the two restorative materials were randomly placed in 430 matched contralateral pairs of permanent molar teeth. A total of 152 children from five primary schools were recruited and treated by a dental therapist. The restorations were evaluated after 6 years by 2 calibrated independent examiners. The 6-year successes for all occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations were 72.6 and 72.3%, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the successes for both amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed either by the ART (68.6%, with 95% CI = 61-76%) approach or by the conventional (74.5%, with 95% CI = 65-82%) and the modified-conventional (75.8%, with 95% CI = 67-83%) approaches after 6 years. There was also no statistically significant difference observed between the successes of occlusal ART restorations with glass-ionomer (67.1%, with 95% CI = 56-77%) and occlusal conventional restorations with amalgam (74%, with 95% CI = 61-85%) after 6 years. 'Restoration fracture/marginal defects' and 'loss of material' were the most common causes for failure. The former was more often recorded in amalgam restorations and the latter in glass-ionomer restorations. Secondary caries was observed for 2% of glass-ionomer and for 10% of amalgam restorations. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.001). The ART approach using glass-ionomer performed equally well as conventional restorative approaches using electrically driven equipment and amalgam for treating dentinal lesions in occlusal surfaces after 6 years.

摘要

本随机临床试验旨在比较三种微创修复治疗方法,这些方法使用非γ-2汞合金和低粘度玻璃离子体作为修复材料来处理咬合面龋齿。在平行组中测试的治疗方法为:大学环境中的传统方法、现场环境中的改良传统方法和超保守方法(非创伤性修复治疗,ART)。采用了一种半口设计,将两种修复材料随机放置在430对匹配的对侧恒牙磨牙上。共有来自五所小学的152名儿童被招募,并由一名牙科治疗师进行治疗。6年后,由2名经过校准的独立检查人员对修复体进行评估。所有咬合面汞合金和玻璃离子体修复体6年的成功率分别为72.6%和72.3%。6年后,采用ART方法(68.6%,95%CI=61-76%)、传统方法(74.5%,95%CI=65-82%)和改良传统方法(75.8%,95%CI=67-83%)放置的汞合金和玻璃离子体修复体的成功率之间没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。6年后,玻璃离子体的咬合面ART修复体(67.1%,95%CI=56-77%)和汞合金的咬合面传统修复体(74%,95%CI=61-85%)的成功率之间也没有观察到统计学上的显著差异。“修复体断裂/边缘缺损”和“材料损失”是最常见的失败原因。前者在汞合金修复体中更常出现,后者在玻璃离子体修复体中更常出现。观察到2%的玻璃离子体修复体和10%的汞合金修复体出现继发龋。这种差异具有统计学意义(p=0.001)。6年后,使用玻璃离子体的ART方法在治疗咬合面牙本质病变方面与使用电动设备和汞合金的传统修复方法表现同样良好。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验