Manhart Juergen, Chen Hong Yan, Neuerer Petra, Thiele Lidka, Jaensch Birgit, Hickel Reinhard
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Quintessence Int. 2008 Oct;39(9):757-65.
This longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated direct composite restorations for clinical acceptability of posterior restoratives in single- or multisurface cavities and provided a preliminary survey of the 3-, 6-, and 18-month results.
Three clinicians placed 46 QuiXfil (Xeno III; Dentsply DeTrey) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac Classic; Vivadent) composite restorations in stress-bearing Class 1 and 2 cavities in first or second molars (43 adult patients). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 3, 6, and 18 months by 2 other clinicians using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the final recall period, 45 QuiXfil and 49 Tetric Ceram restorations were assessed.
A total of 97.8% of QuiXfil and 100% of Tetric Ceram posterior composites were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable with predominating Alpha scores. At the 18-month recall, 1 QuiXfil restoration had failed because of bulk fracture. No significant differences between either composite could be detected at 18 months for all evaluated clinical criteria (P > .05). Small QuiXfil restorations exhibited significantly less marginal discoloration (P = .003) and better restoration integrity (P = .008) than large restorations. The comparison of restoration performance with time within both groups yielded a significant increase in marginal discoloration for QuiXfil (P = .011) and significant deterioration for anatomic form at the marginal step for Tetric Ceram (P = .011). However, both changes were only effects of scoring shifts from Alpha to Bravo.
Clinical assessment of stress-bearing QuiXfil and Tetric Ceram posterior composite restorations exhibited for both materials good clinical results with predominating Alpha scores.
这项纵向随机对照临床试验评估了直接复合树脂修复体用于单表面或多表面后牙洞型修复体的临床可接受性，并对3个月、6个月和18个月的结果进行了初步调查。
三名临床医生在43名成年患者的第一或第二磨牙的承受应力的Ⅰ类和Ⅱ类洞型中放置了46颗QuiXfil（Xeno III；登士柏德瑞）和50颗Tetric Ceram（Syntac Classic；维他）复合树脂修复体。另外两名临床医生在基线时以及3个月、6个月和18个月后使用改良的美国公共卫生服务标准进行临床评估。在最终回访期，对45颗QuiXfil和49颗Tetric Ceram修复体进行了评估。
总共97.8%的QuiXfil和100%的Tetric Ceram后牙复合树脂修复体在临床上被评估为优秀或可接受，主要为Alpha评分。在18个月回访时，1颗QuiXfil修复体因大块折断而失败。对于所有评估的临床标准，在18个月时两种复合树脂之间均未检测到显著差异（P >.05）。小型QuiXfil修复体的边缘变色明显较少（P =.003），修复完整性优于大型修复体（P =.008）。两组内修复体性能随时间的比较显示，QuiXfil的边缘变色显著增加（P =.011），Tetric Ceram边缘台阶处的解剖形态显著恶化（P =.011）。然而，这两种变化仅是评分从Alpha变为Bravo的结果。
对承受应力的QuiXfil和Tetric Ceram后牙复合树脂修复体的临床评估显示，两种材料均具有良好的临床效果，主要为Alpha评分。
