Ivanović Vladimir, Savić-Stanković Tatjana, Karadzić Branislav, Ilić Jugoslav, Santini Ario, Beljić-lvanović Katarina
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2013 Jul-Aug;141(7-8):447-53. doi: 10.2298/sarh1308447i.
Postoperative sensitivity in restorative dentistry can be related to preparation trauma, dentin adhesives' ability to seal open dentinal tubules, deformation of restorations under occlusal stresses and microleakage.
The study assessed possible reduction in postoperative sensitivity with low shrinkage compared to conventional composites using different bonding agents and the influence of the operator skill on the incidence of postoperative sensitivity.
Nine hundred and sixty permanent premolars and molars with primary carious lesions from patients 21 to 40 years old were used. Cavities 2 to 3 mm deep and with margins in enamel were prepared by four operators. Two operators had five years (A and B) and two had over 20 years (C and D) of clinical experience. Teeth were divided into eight groups each contained 120 restorations: (1) Els+James-2 (original formula), (2) Els+James-2 (new formula), (3) Els+Excite, (4) InTenSe+James-2 (original formula), (5) InTenSe+James-2 (new formula), (6) InTenSe+Excite, (7) Tetric Ceram+Excite, and (8) Point 4+OptiBond Solo Plus. At 14 days postoperatively, two independent operators, who did not take part in the clinical procedure, assessed postoperative teeth sensitivity using special questionnaires. Data were analyzed using non-parametric chi-square, Mann-Whitney and ANOVA tests.
Group 8 showed significantly higher score than the other groups. Less postoperative sensitivity was reported with two low-shrinkage composites (groups 2, 3, and 5) but with no significant difference. There was no statistical difference between groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Operator A had the highest postoperative sensitivity score compared to the other three.
Conventional composite material Point 4 with its bonding agent caused significantly more postoperative sensitivity than low shrinkage composites combined with different adhesives. Operator skill influenced the incidence of postoperative sensitivity.
修复牙科中的术后敏感可能与预备创伤、牙本质粘接剂封闭开放牙本质小管的能力、修复体在咬合应力下的变形以及微渗漏有关。
本研究评估了与使用不同粘接剂的传统复合材料相比,低收缩复合材料术后敏感的可能降低情况,以及术者技术对术后敏感发生率的影响。
使用了960颗来自21至40岁患者的患有原发性龋损的恒牙前磨牙和磨牙。由四名术者制备深度为2至3毫米且边缘位于釉质的窝洞。两名术者有五年(A和B)临床经验,两名有超过20年(C和D)临床经验。牙齿被分为八组,每组包含120个修复体:(1)Els+James-2(原始配方),(2)Els+James-2(新配方),(3)Els+Excite,(4)InTenSe+James-2(原始配方),(5)InTenSe+James-2(新配方),(6)InTenSe+Excite,(7)Tetric Ceram+Excite,以及(8)Point 4+OptiBond Solo Plus。术后14天,两名未参与临床操作的独立术者使用特殊问卷评估术后牙齿敏感情况。数据使用非参数卡方检验、曼-惠特尼检验和方差分析进行分析。
第8组的得分显著高于其他组。两种低收缩复合材料(第2、3和5组)报告的术后敏感较少,但无显著差异。第1、2,、3、4、5、6和7组之间无统计学差异。与其他三名术者相比,术者A的术后敏感得分最高。
传统复合材料Point 4及其粘接剂引起的术后敏感显著多于与不同粘接剂结合使用的低收缩复合材料。术者技术影响术后敏感的发生率。