Department of Restorative Dentistry & Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Goethe Street 70, 80336 Munich, Germany.
J Dent. 2011 Jul;39(7):478-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2011.04.005. Epub 2011 Apr 27.
This longitudinal randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the longevity of composite resin inlays in single- or multi-surface cavities up to 4 years.
21 dental students placed 75 Artglass and 80 Charisma composite resin inlays in class I and II cavities in posterior teeth (89 adult patients) luted with dual-curing resin cements. Clinical evaluation was performed up to 4 years using modified USPHS criteria.
87.2% of Artglass and 76.6% of Charisma inlays were assessed to be clinically excellent or acceptable. Up to the 4-year recall 5 Artglass and 11 Charisma inlays failed mainly because of postoperative symptoms, bulk fracture, and loss of marginal integrity. No significant differences between both composite resin materials could be detected at 4 years for all clinical criteria (Mann-Whitney U-test, p>0.05). The comparison of restoration performance with time yielded a significant increase in marginal discolouration and postoperative symptoms (p<0.05), deterioration of surface texture quality, marginal and restoration integrity (p<0.05) for both inlay systems. However, the changes were mainly effects of scoring shifts from alfa to bravo. Small inlays compared to large inlays and premolar restorations compared to molar restorations showed significant better outcome for some of the tested clinical parameters for the Artglass inlays (p<0.05). For Charisma inlays no such influences were revealed.
Clinical assessment of Artglass and Charisma composite resin inlays exhibited an annual failure rate of 3.2% and 5.9% that is within the range of published data. Within the limitations of this study indirect composite inlays are a competitive restorative procedure in stress-bearing preparations.
本纵向随机对照临床试验评估了复合树脂嵌体在单或多表面窝洞中的耐久性,随访时间长达 4 年。
21 名牙科学生在 89 名成年患者的后牙 I 类和 II 类窝洞中放置了 75 个 Artglass 和 80 个 Charisma 复合树脂嵌体,并用双固化树脂水门汀黏固。使用改良美国公共卫生协会(USPHS)标准进行了长达 4 年的临床评估。
75%的 Artglass 和 76.6%的 Charisma 嵌体被评估为临床优秀或可接受。在 4 年的随访中,有 5 个 Artglass 和 11 个 Charisma 嵌体失败,主要原因是术后症状、大块骨折和边缘完整性丧失。在所有临床标准上,4 年时两种复合树脂材料之间均未发现显著差异(Mann-Whitney U 检验,p>0.05)。随着时间的推移,对修复体性能的比较显示,两种嵌体系统的边缘变色和术后症状均显著增加(p<0.05),表面质地质量、边缘和修复体完整性恶化(p<0.05)。然而,这些变化主要是由于评分从 alpha 级转移到 bravo 级所致。与大嵌体相比,小嵌体以及与磨牙修复相比,前磨牙修复的 Artglass 嵌体的一些测试临床参数显示出更好的结果(p<0.05)。对于 Charisma 嵌体,没有发现这种影响。
Artglass 和 Charisma 复合树脂嵌体的临床评估显示每年的失败率为 3.2%和 5.9%,处于已发表数据的范围内。在本研究的限制范围内,间接复合嵌体在负重预备中是一种有竞争力的修复方法。