Suppr超能文献

后牙可填充复合树脂修复体的3年临床评估

3-Year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.

作者信息

Loguercio A D, Reis A, Hernandez P A G, Macedo R P, Busato A L S

机构信息

Department of Dental Materials and Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Oeste of Santa Catarina, UNOESC, Joaçaba, Brazil.

出版信息

J Oral Rehabil. 2006 Feb;33(2):144-51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01539.x.

Abstract

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.

摘要

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。

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