Efes Begüm Güray, Yaman Batu Can, Gurbuz Ozge, Gumuştaş Burak
Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, 34390 Capa, Istanbul, Turkey.
Am J Dent. 2013 Feb;26(1):33-8.
To compare the 2-year clinical performance of a silorane-based resin composite with that of an established nanoceramic resin composite for class 1 posterior restorations.
In this randomized controlled study, 100 class 1 molar cavities were prepared in 50 subjects. Each subject received a restoration with Filtek Silorane and Ceram.X Duo in different quadrants. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6, 12, and 24 months. Parametric changes over the 2-year period were assessed with the Friedman test. The baseline and recall scores were compared by using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P < 0.05).
No subject developed secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity. Further, the resin composites showed no significant differences in all the evaluated parameters over 2 years (P > 0.05). At 2 years, four Filtek Silorane and seven Ceram.X Duo restorations had Bravo scores for anatomic form, marginal adaptation, and surface texture (P < 0.05); however, these changes were mainly the effect of scoring shifts from Alfa to Bravo. Overall, both materials showed good clinical results with predominantly Alfa scores.
比较一种基于硅氧烷的树脂复合材料与一种已确立的纳米陶瓷树脂复合材料用于Ⅰ类后牙修复的2年临床性能。
在这项随机对照研究中,为50名受试者制备了100个Ⅰ类磨牙洞。每位受试者在不同象限分别接受了Filtek Silorane和Ceram.X Duo修复体。在基线以及6个月、12个月和24个月时,使用改良的美国公共卫生服务(USPHS)标准对修复体进行评估。采用Friedman检验评估2年期间的参数变化。使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验比较基线和复查分数(P<0.05)。
没有受试者发生继发龋或术后敏感。此外,两种树脂复合材料在2年的所有评估参数中均未显示出显著差异(P>0.05)。在2年时,4个Filtek Silorane修复体和7个Ceram.X Duo修复体在解剖形态、边缘适合性和表面纹理方面获得了优秀(Bravo)评分(P<0.05);然而,这些变化主要是评分从良好(Alfa)转变为优秀的结果。总体而言,两种材料均显示出良好的临床结果,主要为良好(Alfa)评分。