Grogono A L, McInnes P M, Zinck J H, Weinberg R
Louisiana State University School of Dentistry, New Orleans.
Am J Dent. 1990 Aug;3(4):147-52.
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of two posterior composite materials, and two placement techniques, unlaminated and laminated to glass ionomer base. Forty Class II carious lesions were randomly assigned for restoration with one of two composites: Status or Ful-Fil; and using one of two techniques: with and without a glass ionomer base. In the 20 restorations using the laminate technique, the glass ionomer base covered the dentin and extended to the cavosurface in the gingival third of the proximal box. The restorations were evaluated clinically at 24 hours, 6 months, 12 months and 24 months. The clinical parameters used for the examination were: anatomic form, marginal adaptation, color, secondary caries, marginal discoloration and contact. Bitewing radiographs were taken at 24 hours and at 24 months to evaluate gingival margin discrepancy. Impressions of the restorations were made for fabrication of stone dies. Of the 40 restorations, 38 (95%) were available for evaluation at 24 months. For both materials there was a deterioration in anatomic form, in marginal adaptation, and in marginal discoloration. Anatomic form was significantly worse with Status (P less than 0.05). Of the 20 restorations placed using the laminate technique, two had observable loss of the glass ionomer material. Radiographic radiolucencies were observed for both materials and with both techniques. For the laminate technique, all radiolucencies were between the glass ionomer and the composite. The radiographic observations did not change after the initial evaluation. All the restorations were functioning well at 24 months, but longer observation will be required to determine whether there is a clinically significant difference between the two placement techniques.
本研究的目的是评估和比较两种后牙复合树脂材料以及两种修复技术（未分层和与玻璃离子垫底分层）的临床性能。40个Ⅱ类龋损随机分配使用两种复合树脂材料之一进行修复：Status或Ful-Fil；并采用两种技术之一：有或没有玻璃离子垫底。在使用分层技术的20个修复体中，玻璃离子垫底覆盖牙本质并延伸至近中盒龈方三分之一的洞缘。在24小时、6个月、12个月和24个月时对修复体进行临床评估。用于检查的临床参数包括：解剖外形、边缘适合性、颜色、继发龋、边缘变色和接触情况。在24小时和24个月时拍摄咬合翼片以评估龈缘差异。制取修复体印模以制作石膏模型。40个修复体中，38个（95%）在24个月时可供评估。两种材料的解剖外形、边缘适合性和边缘变色均有恶化。Status材料的解剖外形明显更差（P小于0.05）。在使用分层技术的20个修复体中，有两个玻璃离子材料出现明显损耗。两种材料和两种技术均观察到X线透射区。对于分层技术，所有透射区均位于玻璃离子和复合树脂之间。初始评估后X线观察结果未改变。所有修复体在24个月时功能良好，但需要更长时间的观察以确定两种修复技术之间是否存在临床显著差异。
