Suppr超能文献

乳牙中树脂改良型和传统玻璃离子修复体:8年随访结果

Resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth: 8-year results.

作者信息

Qvist V, Manscher E, Teglers P T

机构信息

Department of Cariology and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 20 Nörre Alle, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark.

出版信息

J Dent. 2004 May;32(4):285-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2004.01.001.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare the longevity and cariostatic effects of resin-modified (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer (GIC) restorations in primary teeth in the Danish Public Dental Health Service.

METHODS

The sample consisted of 543 RMGIC and 451 GIC restorations in all cavity types in the primary teeth of 640 children, aged 3.0-17.5 years. The restorations were in contact with 480 unrestored surfaces. The restorations and the adjacent surfaces were followed until exfoliation/extraction of the teeth, repair/replacement of restorations or operative treatment of adjacent surfaces. Survival analyses supplied with multivariate analyses were performed to assess the influence of different factors on the longevity of restorations, occurrence of prevalent failures, and caries treatment of adjacent surfaces.

RESULTS

After 8 years, 2% of the restorations were still in function and 37% of the RMGIC and 44% of the GIC restorations had been repaired or replaced. Fracture and loss of retention predominated as the reasons for failure of restorations in both materials. The 50% survival time for restorations was 55 months for RMGIC and 48 months for GIC (p = 0.01). Progression of caries lesions required operative treatment on 20% of the surfaces in contact with RMGIC and on 14% of surfaces adjacent to GIC restorations. The 75% survival time was 35 months for surfaces in contact with both materials (p = 0.37).

CONCLUSIONS

RMGIC and GIC showed similar cariostatic effects on restored teeth and adjacent tooth surfaces, but RMGIC should be preferred for class II restorations in the primary dentition, and class III/V restorations should be made in GIC due to enhanced longevity.

摘要

目的

在丹麦公共牙科保健服务中,比较树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC)和传统玻璃离子水门汀(GIC)修复乳牙的使用寿命和防龋效果。

方法

样本包括640名3.0至17.5岁儿童乳牙所有洞型中的543个RMGIC修复体和451个GIC修复体。这些修复体与480个未修复的表面接触。对修复体及其相邻表面进行随访,直至牙齿脱落/拔除、修复体修复/更换或相邻表面进行手术治疗。进行多变量分析的生存分析,以评估不同因素对修复体使用寿命、常见失败情况的发生以及相邻表面龋齿治疗的影响。

结果

8年后,2%的修复体仍在发挥功能,37%的RMGIC修复体和44%的GIC修复体已进行修复或更换。两种材料中,修复体失败的主要原因是折断和固位丧失。RMGIC修复体的50%生存时间为55个月,GIC修复体为48个月(p = 0.01)。20%与RMGIC接触的表面以及14%与GIC修复体相邻的表面上的龋损进展需要进行手术治疗。两种材料接触表面的75%生存时间为35个月(p = 0.37)。

结论

RMGIC和GIC对修复牙齿及相邻牙面显示出相似的防龋效果,但对于乳牙列中的II类修复体,应首选RMGIC,而III/V类修复体应采用GIC,因其使用寿命更长。

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