Lundin S A, Andersson B, Koch G, Rasmusson C G
Department of Pedodontics, Postgraduate Dental Education Center, Orebro, Sweden.
Swed Dent J. 1990;14(3):105-14.
Class II restorations of five light-cured posterior composite materials (Occlusion, P 30, Fulfil, Profile and Heliomolar) were followed for three years, and restorations of another material (Distalite) were followed for two years. Twenty-four dentists from The Public Dental Health Service in the county of Bohuslän placed 242 Class II restorations in 213 patients. The restorations were evaluated after three years using the USPHS criteria. Stone casts were used to categorize quantitatively the amount of occlusal wear according to the Leinfelder method. No differences could be found between the different materials regarding clinical properties. The failure rate (USPHS ratings Charlie) was low, 6.5 per cent. The average occlusal wear after three years for most of the materials was about 100 micrometers. Heliomolar showed a better resistance to wear compared with the other materials.
对五种光固化后牙复合材料（Occlusion、P 30、Fulfil、Profile和Heliomolar）的II类修复体进行了三年的跟踪观察，对另一种材料（Distalite）的修复体进行了两年的跟踪观察。来自 Bohuslän 县公共牙科保健服务机构的 24 名牙医为 213 名患者进行了 242 个 II 类修复体的修复。三年后使用美国公共卫生服务部（USPHS）标准对修复体进行评估。使用石膏模型根据 Leinfelder 方法对咬合磨损量进行定量分类。不同材料在临床性能方面未发现差异。失败率（USPHS 评级为 Charlie）较低，为 6.5%。大多数材料在三年后的平均咬合磨损约为 100 微米。与其他材料相比，Heliomolar 表现出更好的耐磨性。
