Hörsted-Bindslev P, Heyde-Petersen B, Simonsen P, Baelum V
Department of Dental Pathology, Operative Dentistry and Endodontics School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Aarhus, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, Aarhus, 8000, Denmark.
Clin Oral Investig. 2005 Dec;9(4):233-8. doi: 10.1007/s00784-005-0011-6. Epub 2005 Aug 23.
The aim of the present effectiveness trial was to compare the survival of restorations placed in saucer-shaped cavities to that of restorations placed in tunnel preparations. Ten operators placed a total of 85 tunnel and 97 saucer-shaped restorations. The dentinal part of the tunnel was restored by resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The remaining part of the tunnel was restored by composite resin using an adhesive technique. Composite resin was used to restore the saucer-shaped cavities. The restorations were assessed clinically and radiographically for up to 79 months, with a mean observation time of 28.8 months for tunnel, and 30.3 months for saucer-shaped restorations. The survival proportion of the tunnel restorations was 46%, and the survival proportion for the saucer-shaped restorations was 76%. A main reason for failure of the tunnel restorations was fracture of the marginal ridge (24% after 24 months). Caries development in relation to the restoration was significantly higher for tunnel restorations compared with saucer-shaped restorations (41 and 19%, respectively, after 24 months). There was no difference between the two types of restoration in marginal deterioration and caries progression in the neighboring tooth (40% after 24 months). Based on findings from the present study, it is suggested that saucer-shaped restorations should be preferred for tunnel restorations in small- and mid-sized cavities.
本有效性试验的目的是比较放置在碟形窝洞中的修复体与放置在隧道预备洞型中的修复体的存留情况。10名操作者共放置了85个隧道预备洞型修复体和97个碟形修复体。隧道预备洞型的牙本质部分用树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀修复。隧道预备洞型的其余部分采用粘结技术用复合树脂修复。碟形窝洞用复合树脂修复。对修复体进行了长达79个月的临床和影像学评估，隧道预备洞型修复体的平均观察时间为28.8个月，碟形修复体为30.3个月。隧道预备洞型修复体的存留率为46%，碟形修复体的存留率为76%。隧道预备洞型修复体失败的一个主要原因是边缘嵴折断（24个月后为24%）。与碟形修复体相比，隧道预备洞型修复体与修复体相关的龋病进展明显更高（24个月后分别为41%和19%）。两种修复体在边缘劣化和邻牙龋病进展方面没有差异（24个月后为40%）。基于本研究的结果，建议在中小型窝洞的隧道预备洞型修复中应优先选择碟形修复体。
