Franco Eduardo Batista, Benetti Ana Raquel, Ishikiriama Sérgio Kiyoshi, Santiago Sérgio Lima, Lauris José Roberto Pereira, Jorge Mauro Fonseca Ferreira, Navarro Maria Fidela de Lima
Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
Oper Dent. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):403-8. doi: 10.2341/05-87.
To comparatively assess the 5-year clinical performance of a 1-bottle adhesive and resin composite system with a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative in non-carious cervical lesions.
One operator placed 70 restorations (35 resin modified glass ionomer restorations and 35 resin composite restorations) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by 2 independent examiners, using modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24 and 60 months.
Twenty-two patients were available for recall after 5 years (73.3% recall rate) and 55 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (kappa > or = 0.85). Sixteen composite restorations were dislodged (51.5% retention) and 1 ionomer restoration was lost (96.4% retention). The McNemar test detected significant differences in resin composite restorations between baseline and 5-year recall for marginal integrity (p<0.001) and retention (p=0.004). For resin modified glass ionomer restorations, no significant differences were identified for all criteria (p>0.05). When comparing both materials, the Fisher exact test pointed out significant differences in retention (p=0.002) after 5 years of clinical service.
After 5 years of evaluation, the clinical performance of resin modified glass ionomer restorations was superior to resin composite restorations.
比较评估单瓶装粘结剂和树脂复合材料系统与树脂改性玻璃离子修复材料用于非龋性颈部病变的5年临床性能。
一名操作人员在橡皮障隔离下，对30例患者进行了70次修复（35次树脂改性玻璃离子修复和35次树脂复合材料修复），未进行机械预备。在基线、6个月、12个月、24个月和60个月时，由2名独立检查者使用改良的美国公共卫生服务标准对修复体进行直接评估。
5年后，22例患者可供回访（回访率73.3%），对70个修复体中的55个进行了评估。检查者之间在所有标准上的一致性都非常好（kappa≥0.85）。16个复合树脂修复体脱落（保留率51.5%），1个玻璃离子修复体脱落（保留率96.4%）。McNemar检验发现，树脂复合材料修复体在基线和5年回访时，边缘完整性（p<0.001）和保留率（p=0.004）存在显著差异。对于树脂改性玻璃离子修复体，所有标准均未发现显著差异（p>0.05）。比较两种材料时，Fisher精确检验指出临床使用5年后，保留率存在显著差异（p=0.002）。
经过5年的评估，树脂改性玻璃离子修复体的临床性能优于树脂复合材料修复体。
