Santiago Sérgio Lima, Passos Vanara Florêncio, Vieira Alessandra Helen Magacho, Navarro Maria Fidela de Lima, Lauris José Roberto Pereira, Franco Eduardo Batista
Federal University of Ceará, Fortaleza, CE, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2010;21(3):229-34. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402010000300010.
This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and resin composite system (Excite/Tetric Ceram) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer/3M) in non-carious cervical lesions. Seventy cervical restorations (35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact and McNemar tests. After 2 years, 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. As much as 78.8% retention rate was recorded for RC restorations, while 100% retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations. Fisher's exact test showed significant differences (p=0.011) for retention. However, there were no significant differences for marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations. The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention (p=0.02), marginal integrity (p=0.002) and anatomic form (p=0.04). Therefore, the one-bottle etch-and-rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC.
这项对照临床试验评估了一种单瓶酸蚀冲洗粘结剂和树脂复合材料系统(Excite/Tetric Ceram)与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC)(Vitremer/3M)在非龋性颈部病变中的2年临床性能。由一名操作人员在橡皮障隔离下,对30例患者的非龋性颈部病变进行修复,共放置70个颈部修复体(35个树脂复合材料修复体和35个RMGIC修复体),且未进行机械预备。在基线、6个月、12个月和24个月时,由2名独立检查者使用改良的美国公共卫生署(USPHS)标准对所有修复体进行盲法评估。数据采用Fisher精确检验和McNemar检验进行统计学分析。2年后,对70个修复体中的59个进行了评估。树脂复合材料修复体的保留率为78.8%,而RMGIC修复体的保留率为100%。Fisher精确检验显示保留率存在显著差异(p=0.011)。然而,树脂复合材料修复体和RMGIC修复体在边缘完整性、边缘变色、解剖形态和继发龋方面无显著差异。McNemar检验检测到Excite/TC在基线和2年随访时的保留率(p=0.02)、边缘完整性(p=0.002)和解剖形态(p=0.04)存在显著差异。因此,与RMGIC相比,单瓶酸蚀冲洗粘结系统/树脂复合材料的临床性能较差。