Department of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Mar;141(3):319-29. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0166.
The authors conducted a two-year clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of two resin-based composite materials for Class II restorations placed according to two filling techniques.
Twenty-six patients received 105 Class II restorations, which the authors distributed randomly into three groups of 35 each. The resin-based composite restorations in group A were composed of average-density material (Ceram X mono [CXM], Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) placed according to the oblique incremental technique (OIT). Restorations in group B were composed of average- and high-density materials (CXM and SureFil [SF], Dentsply DeTrey) placed according to the modified incremental technique (MIT). Restorations in group C were composed of the high-density material (SF) placed with the OIT. The authors evaluated the restorations according to modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria.
At the two-year recall visit, 92 (88 percent) of 105 restorations were available for examination. Restorations in groups A, B and C had success rates of 96.7 percent (29 of 30 restorations), 96.8 percent (30 of 31) and 100 percent (31 of 31), respectively. Esthetic parameters revealed significant (P<.05) cavo-surface marginal discoloration in group B and a rougher surface in group A. With regard to functional parameters, one (3.3 percent) of 30 restorations in group A exhibited reparable changes in marginal integrity.
Restorations in group B performed worse (P<.05) in terms of esthetic (cavosurface marginal discoloration) and functional (marginal integrity) parameters. Clinical effectiveness was highest in group C and lowest in group B.
The two resin-based composite materials are effective in Class II clinical situations when placed with either the OIT or MIT.
作者进行了一项为期两年的临床试验，以评估两种树脂基复合材料在两种填充技术下用于 II 类修复的效果。
26 名患者接受了 105 个 II 类修复，作者将其随机分为三组，每组 35 个。A 组的树脂基复合材料由中密度材料（德国登士柏迪特利的 Ceram X mono [CXM]）按斜向增量技术（OIT）放置。B 组的修复体由中密度和高密度材料（CXM 和 SureFil [SF]，登士柏迪特利）按改良增量技术（MIT）放置。C 组的修复体由高密度材料（SF）按 OIT 放置。作者根据改良美国公共卫生服务标准评估修复体。
在两年的随访中，105 个修复体中有 92 个（88%）可供检查。A、B 和 C 组的修复体成功率分别为 96.7%（30 个修复体中的 29 个）、96.8%（31 个修复体中的 30 个）和 100%（31 个修复体中的 31 个）。美学参数显示 B 组有显著（P<.05）的窝沟边缘变色，A 组表面较粗糙。关于功能参数，A 组的 30 个修复体中有一个（3.3%）显示边缘完整性可修复变化。
B 组在美学（窝沟边缘变色）和功能（边缘完整性）参数方面表现较差（P<.05）。C 组的临床效果最高，B 组最低。
当使用 OIT 或 MIT 时，两种树脂基复合材料在 II 类临床情况下均有效。
