Suzuki Shiro
Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham, AL 35294-0007, USA.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004;16(6):355-65; discussion 365-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00068.x.
There is little evidence that packable composites are sufficiently wear resistant to be used as an alternative to amalgam.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate wear rates of packable composites compared with hybrid resin composites and amalgams by an in vitro wear test.
The following composites were used: three packable composites (SureFil, Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, DE, USA; Alert, Pentron Clinical Technologies, Wallingford, CT, USA; and Solitaire, Heraeus Kulzer, Wehrheim, Germany), two hybrid resin composites (TPH Spectrum, Dentsply/Caulk; and Pyramid enamel, Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA), and two amalgams (Tytin, Kerr Manufacturing Co., Romulus, MI, USA; and Dispersalloy, Dentsply/ Caulk). Cylindrical Class I cavities prepared on occlusally flattened, extracted human molars were restored with respective materials according to the manufacturers' instructions. Generalized, localized, and antagonistic enamel wear tests were carried out by a University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) wear simulator according to previously reported methods. Seven specimens were tested for each group, and the wear depths were measured on profilometric tracings. The data for each wear mode were independently analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Fisher's exact test (p < or = .05).
The generalized wear values for SureFil (7.0 +/- 3.5 microm), Alert (8.6 +/- 1.8 microm), and Pyramid (3.9 +/- 0.5 microm) were not statistically different from those of amalgam materials (Tytin 5.8 +/- 0.7 microm, Dispersalloy 6.0 +/- 0.9 microm) but were different from those of Solitaire (23.9 +/- 2.6 microm) and TPH (30.6 +/- 5.5 microm). The localized wear values for SureFil (19.8 +/- 14.2 microm) and Alert (28.0 +/- 1.6 microm) were significantly smaller than for all other materials. For antagonistic enamel wear, Solitaire exhibited a minimal value (3.4 +/- 0.9 microm), whereas values of SureFil (12.6 +/- 5.6 microm) and Alert (12.0 +/- 6.6 microm) were not statistically different from those of TPH (11.0 +/- 4.0 microm) and amalgams (Tytin 14.5 +/- 4.3 microm, Dispersalloy 7.8 +/- 3.3 microm).
It can be concluded that SureFil and Alert packable composites possess similar wear resistance and abrasiveness to amalgam on the basis of the limitations of this study, which simulated 3 years of clinical wear.
几乎没有证据表明可填充性复合材料具有足够的耐磨性，可作为汞合金的替代品。
本研究的目的是通过体外磨损试验，评估可填充性复合材料与混合树脂复合材料及汞合金相比的磨损率。
使用了以下复合材料：三种可填充性复合材料（SureFil，美国登士柏/卡克公司，米尔福德，特拉华州；Alert，美国彭特龙临床技术公司，沃灵福德，康涅狄格州；Solitaire，德国贺利氏古莎公司，韦尔海姆），两种混合树脂复合材料（TPH Spectrum，美国登士柏/卡克公司；Pyramid enamel，美国必思科公司，绍姆堡，伊利诺伊州），以及两种汞合金（Tytin，美国克尔制造公司，罗穆卢斯，密歇根州；Dispersalloy，美国登士柏/卡克公司）。在咬合面磨平的拔除人磨牙上制备圆柱形I类洞型，按照制造商的说明用相应材料进行修复。根据先前报道的方法，由阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校（UAB）磨损模拟器进行全面、局部和对抗性牙釉质磨损试验。每组测试7个标本，并在轮廓测量曲线上测量磨损深度。每种磨损模式的数据通过单因素方差分析和Fisher精确检验进行独立分析（p≤0.05）。
SureFil（7.0±3.5微米）、Alert（8.6±1.8微米）和Pyramid（3.9±0.5微米）的全面磨损值与汞合金材料（Tytin 5.8±0.7微米，Dispersalloy 6.0±0.9微米）相比无统计学差异，但与Solitaire（23.9±2.6微米）和TPH（30.6±5.5微米）不同。SureFil（19.8±14.2微米）和Alert（28.0±1.6微米）的局部磨损值显著小于所有其他材料。对于对抗性牙釉质磨损，Solitaire表现出最小值（3.4±0.9微米），而SureFil（12.6±5.6微米）和Alert（12.0±6.6微米）的值与TPH（11.0±4.0微米）和汞合金（Tytin 14.5±4.3微米，Dispersalloy 7.8±3.3微米）相比无统计学差异。
基于本模拟3年临床磨损的研究局限性，可以得出结论，SureFil和Alert可填充性复合材料与汞合金具有相似的耐磨性和磨蚀性。
