Yip Kevin H K, Poon Belinda K M, Chu Frederick C S, Poon Eric C M, Kong Fiona Y C, Smales Roger J
Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, The Prince Philip Dental Hospital, Hong Kong SAR, PR China.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2003 Dec;134(12):1581-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0103.
Packable resin-based composites and simplified resin bonding systems are marketed to offer many advantages over conventional posterior hybrid composites and total-etch bonding systems. The authors conducted a study to evaluate the initial clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a simplified bonding system.
A total of 57 Class I and 45 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 65 adult patients. The carious lesions were restored with either packable resin-based composite (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) or conventional hybrid resin-based composite (SpectrumTPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH), using a resin adhesive (Non-Rinse Conditioner and Prime & Bond NT, both manufactured by Dentsply DeTrey GmbH). The authors evaluated the restorations using U.S. Public Health Service-Ryge modified criteria (in which Alfa is the highest rating) and by using color transparencies and die stone replicas.
Three SureFil restorations failed before their baseline evaluation. There were no failures among the 78 SpectrumTPH restorations evaluated at 12 months. For both resin-based composites, Alfa ratings were 90 percent or higher for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. Occasional mild postoperative sensitivity was reported for four SureFil restorations and one SpectrumTPH restoration. The mean occlusal wear rate was 38 micrometers for the larger SureFil restorations and 25 microm for the smaller SpectrumTPH restorations.
The 12-month clinical performances of the two restorative materials were satisfactory and not significantly different for each of the parameters evaluated.
A packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite placed with a simplified bonding system in posterior permanent teeth showed satisfactory and similar results after 12 months.
可塑形树脂基复合材料和简化树脂粘结系统在市场上销售，宣称比传统的后牙混合复合材料和全酸蚀粘结系统具有许多优势。作者进行了一项研究，以评估一种可塑形和一种传统混合树脂基复合材料与简化粘结系统联合使用时的初始临床性能。
在65名成年患者的恒牙中总共进行了57例I类和45例II类修复。使用树脂粘结剂（均由登士柏德瑞公司生产的免冲洗调理剂和Prime & Bond NT），用可塑形树脂基复合材料（SureFil，德国康斯坦茨登士柏德瑞公司）或传统混合树脂基复合材料（Spectrum TPH，德国康斯坦茨登士柏德瑞公司）修复龋损。作者使用美国公共卫生服务部 - 赖格修改标准（其中Alfa为最高评级）以及通过使用彩色透明片和代型石膏复制品来评估修复体。
3个SureFil修复体在基线评估前失败。在12个月时评估的78个Spectrum TPH修复体中没有失败病例。对于两种树脂基复合材料，边缘变色、解剖形态、表面质地和表面染色的Alfa评级均为90%或更高。在颜色匹配、边缘完整性和牙龈健康方面，评为Alfa的修复体百分比更低。有4个SureFil修复体和1个Spectrum TPH修复体报告了偶尔的轻度术后敏感。较大的SureFil修复体的平均咬合磨损率为38微米，较小的Spectrum TPH修复体为25微米。
两种修复材料的12个月临床性能令人满意，并且在所评估的每个参数上没有显著差异。
在恒牙后牙中使用简化粘结系统放置的可塑形和传统混合树脂基复合材料在12个月后显示出令人满意且相似的结果。
