Summitt James B, Burgess John O, Berry Thomas G, Robbins J William, Osborne John W, Haveman Carl W
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Dental School, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
Oper Dent. 2004 May-Jun;29(3):261-8.
This clinical study compared the performance of complex amalgam restorations retained with self-threading pins or bonded with a filled, 4-META-based resin. Sixty amalgam restorations (28 pin-retained and 32 bonded), each replacing at least one cusp, were placed. Self-threading stainless steel pins (Coltene-Whaledent) were used in the pin-retained group. A filled, 4-META-based bonding resin (Amalgambond Plus with HPA powder) was used in the bonded group. For both groups, any retention form remaining after removal of an old restoration was left in place but not enhanced. At six years, 11 restorations had failed; eight of which were pin-retained and three bonded. Using Fisher's exact test to compare the groups at six years, there was no significant difference in failure rate, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, tooth sensitivity or tooth vitality. At six years, there was no difference in the performance of pin-retained amalgam restorations and bonded amalgam restorations.
这项临床研究比较了用自攻螺纹钉固位的复合汞合金修复体与用含4 - META的填充树脂粘结的复合汞合金修复体的性能。共放置了60个汞合金修复体(28个用钉固位,32个用粘结),每个修复体至少替代一个牙尖。自攻螺纹不锈钢钉(科尔tene - 惠尔登特公司)用于用钉固位组。含4 - META的填充粘结树脂(含HPA粉末的Amalgambond Plus)用于粘结组。对于两组,去除旧修复体后剩余的任何固位形式均保留原位但不增强。6年后,11个修复体失败;其中8个是用钉固位的,3个是粘结的。使用费舍尔精确检验在6年时比较两组,在失败率、边缘适应性、边缘变色、继发龋、牙齿敏感或牙齿活力方面没有显著差异。6年后,用钉固位的汞合金修复体和粘结的汞合金修复体的性能没有差异。