Loguercio A D, Reis A, Hernandez P A G, Macedo R P, Busato A L S
Department of Dental Materials and Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Oeste of Santa Catarina, UNOESC, Joaçaba, Brazil.
J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Feb;33(2):144-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01539.x.
This study evaluated the clinical performance of four packable resin composite restorative materials in posterior teeth (Class I and II) compared with one hybrid composite after 3 years. Eighty-four restorations were placed in 16 patients. The tested materials were: (i) Solitaire + Solid Bond; (ii) ALERT + Bond-1; (iii) Surefil + Prime & Bond NT; (iv) Filtek P60 + Single Bond and (v) TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1. All restorations were made using rubber dam isolation, and the cavity design was restricted to the elimination of carious tissue. Deeper cavities were covered with calcium hydroxide and/or glass-ionomer cement. Each adhesive system and composite resin was placed according to the manufacturer's instructions. One week later, the restorations were finished/polished and evaluated according USPHS modified criteria. Fourteen patients attended the 3-year recall and 75 restorations were evaluated at that time based on the same evaluation criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon sign-ranked test for pair-wise comparison was used for data analysis (alpha = 0.05). The analysis was performed only for the baseline and for the 3-year period. Solitaire showed some fractures at marginal ridges in 25% of the cases. Solitaire and ALERT showed some concerns related to colour match (43 and 77%, respectively) and surface texture (86 and 77%, respectively). TPH Spectrum showed a great percentage of colour mismatch after 3 years, around 50%. Surefil and Filtek P60 showed an excellent clinical performance after 3 years, similar to the hybrid resin tested, TPH Spectrum. Solitaire did not fulfil the ADA acceptance criteria for restorative materials and, therefore, is not recommended for use in posterior restorations.
本研究评估了四种可压实树脂复合修复材料在3年后与一种混合型复合树脂相比用于后牙(I类和II类)的临床性能。在16名患者中放置了84个修复体。测试材料包括:(i)Solitaire + Solid Bond;(ii)ALERT + Bond-1;(iii)Surefil + Prime & Bond NT;(iv)Filtek P60 + Single Bond;(v)TPH Spectrum + Prime & Bond 2.1。所有修复体均采用橡皮障隔离制作,窝洞设计仅限于去除龋坏组织。较深的窝洞用氢氧化钙和/或玻璃离子水门汀覆盖。每种粘结系统和复合树脂均按照制造商的说明放置。一周后,修复体完成/抛光,并根据美国公共卫生服务部(USPHS)修改后的标准进行评估。14名患者参加了3年的回访,当时根据相同的评估标准对75个修复体进行了评估。采用Friedman秩次重复测量方差分析和Wilcoxon符号秩次检验进行两两比较的数据分析(α = 0.05)。仅对基线期和3年期进行分析。Solitaire在25%的病例中边缘嵴出现了一些折裂。Solitaire和ALERT在颜色匹配(分别为43%和77%)和表面质地(分别为86%和77%)方面存在一些问题。3年后,TPH Spectrum出现颜色不匹配的比例很高,约为50%。Surefil和Filtek P60在3年后表现出优异的临床性能,与测试的混合型树脂TPH Spectrum相似。Solitaire未达到美国牙科协会(ADA)对修复材料的验收标准,因此,不建议用于后牙修复。