Moura Flávio Renato Reis de, Romano Ana Regina, Lund Rafael Guerra, Piva Evandro, Rodrigues Júnior Sinval Adalberto, Demarco Flávio Fernando
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Lutheran University of Brazil, Cachoeira do Sul, RS, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2011;22(2):111-6. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000200004.
This retrospective study evaluated the clinical performance and the reasons for failure of anterior and posterior composite restorations placed by undergraduate dental students over a 3-year period. All cavities were restored using Prime & Bond 2.1 and TPH (Dentsply), according to the manufacturer's indications. One hundred and two patients who had received composite restorations by third and forth year undergraduate students were recalled and examined to analyze the quality of the restorations. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS system. Two hundred and fifty-six composite restorations, 170 in anterior teeth and 86 in posterior teeth, were evaluated. Eighty-five percent of the restorations were considered satisfactory after 3 years. Class II and class IV restorations presented the highest prevalence of failure. Loss of the restoration and deficient marginal adaptation were the main causes of failure. No restoration failed due to secondary caries. Most restorations placed by dental students were considered satisfactory after long-term evaluation. Failure was more prevalent in larger restorations and was not associated with secondary caries.
这项回顾性研究评估了牙科本科生在3年时间内进行的前后牙复合树脂修复体的临床性能及失败原因。所有窝洞均按照制造商的说明，使用Prime & Bond 2.1和TPH（登士柏公司）进行修复。对102例接受三年级和四年级本科生复合树脂修复的患者进行召回检查，以分析修复体的质量。修复体采用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）系统进行评估。共评估了256个复合树脂修复体，其中前牙170个，后牙86个。3年后，85%的修复体被认为是令人满意的。Ⅱ类和Ⅳ类修复体的失败率最高。修复体脱落和边缘适应性不足是失败的主要原因。没有修复体因继发龋而失败。经过长期评估，牙科学生所做的大多数修复体被认为是令人满意的。较大的修复体失败率更高，且与继发龋无关。
