Burrow Michael F, Tyas Martin J
School of Dental Science, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Oper Dent. 2007 Jan-Feb;32(1):11-5. doi: 10.2341/06-50.
The use of adhesive materials to restore non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) has become the standard practice. Until recently, the most reliable material for restoring NCCL is glass ionomer cement, but the esthetics can be problematic. This study compared the retention of a self-etching adhesive, Clearfil SE Bond, with Clearfil ST resin composite (SE), with the phosphoric acid-etch single bottle adhesive Single Bond with A110 resin composite (SB) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Fuji II LC, (FJ). Ninety-two restorations in 20 patients (mean age 61 years) were placed. The teeth were restored randomly and manufacturers' instructions were followed. Patients were recalled at 6 months, 1, 2 and 3 years and the restorations were evaluated for marginal staining. The restorations were photographed at baseline and at recall periods. At one year, 80 restorations were available for evaluation; at 2 years, 65 restorations were evaluated and at 3 years, 55 restorations were evaluated. The cumulative retention rates at 1 year, 2 years and 3 years, respectively, were SE: 97%, 93%, 90%; SB: 86%, 77%, 77%; FJ: 100%, 100%, 97%. At 3 years, RM-GIC performed the best, followed by Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil ST. Single Bond/A110's performance was significantly less than the other 2 materials (p = 0.012).
使用粘结材料修复非龋性颈部病变（NCCL）已成为标准做法。直到最近，修复NCCL最可靠的材料是玻璃离子水门汀，但美观性可能存在问题。本研究比较了自酸蚀粘结剂Clearfil SE Bond与Clearfil ST树脂复合材料（SE）、磷酸酸蚀单瓶粘结剂Single Bond与A110树脂复合材料（SB）以及树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀Fuji II LC（FJ）的固位情况。对20名患者（平均年龄61岁）的92颗牙齿进行了修复。牙齿随机进行修复，并遵循制造商的说明。在6个月、1年、2年和3年时对患者进行回访，评估修复体的边缘染色情况。在基线和回访期对修复体进行拍照。1年时，有80颗修复体可供评估；2年时，评估了65颗修复体；3年时，评估了55颗修复体。1年、2年和3年时的累积固位率分别为：SE：97%、93%、90%；SB：86%、77%、77%；FJ：100%、100%、97%。3年时，树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀表现最佳，其次是Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil ST。Single Bond/A110的表现明显低于其他两种材料（p = 0.012）。
