Schmidt Malene, Dige Irene, Kirkevang Lise-Lotte, Vaeth Michael, Hørsted-Bindslev Preben
Section of Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Aarhus University, Vennelyst Boulevard 9, DK-8000, Aarhus, Denmark,
Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Mar;19(2):245-51. doi: 10.1007/s00784-014-1238-x. Epub 2014 Apr 1.
The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical performance of a low-shrinkage silorane-based composite material (Filtek™ Silorane, 3 M-Espe) by comparing it with a methacrylate-based composite material (Ceram•X™, Dentsply DeTrey).
A number of 72 patients (158 restorations) participated in the study. After 5 years, a total of 107 restorations (52 Filtek™ Silorane, 55 Ceram•X™) in 48 patients were evaluated. Only class II restorations were included. All the restorations were placed by the same dentist, and the restorations were scored by one experienced dentist/evaluator. Materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. The primary outcome was marginal adaptation. Secondary outcomes were: marginal discoloration, approximal contact, anatomic form, fracture, secondary caries, and hypersensitivity.
After 5 years, no statistically significant differences between the two materials were found in marginal adaptation either occlusally (p = 0.96) or approximally (p = 0.62). No statistically significant differences were found between the two materials in terms of approximal contact, anatomic form, fractures, or discoloration. Secondary caries was found in two teeth (Filtek™ Silorane). One tooth showed hypersensitivity (Ceram•X™).
Restorations of both materials were clinically acceptable after 5 years. This study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite, which indicates that the low-shrinkage of Filtek™ Silorane may not be a determinant factor for clinical success in class II cavities.
This paper is the first to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite material.
本研究旨在通过将低收缩率的硅烷类复合材料(Filtek™ Silorane,3M-ESPE)与甲基丙烯酸酯类复合材料(Ceram•X™,登士柏西诺德)进行比较,来研究其临床性能。
72名患者(158颗修复体)参与了本研究。5年后,对48名患者的总共107颗修复体(52颗Filtek™ Silorane,55颗Ceram•X™)进行了评估。仅纳入II类修复体。所有修复体均由同一位牙医放置,且由一名经验丰富的牙医/评估者对修复体进行评分。材料按照制造商的说明应用。主要结果是边缘适应性。次要结果包括:边缘变色、邻面接触、外形、折断、继发龋和过敏。
5年后,两种材料在咬合面(p = 0.96)或邻面(p = 0.62)的边缘适应性方面均未发现统计学上显著的差异。两种材料在邻面接触、外形、折断或变色方面也未发现统计学上显著的差异。在两颗牙齿(Filtek™ Silorane)中发现了继发龋。一颗牙齿出现过敏(Ceram•X™)。
5年后两种材料的修复体在临床上均可接受。本研究未发现硅烷类复合材料相对于甲基丙烯酸酯类复合材料有任何优势,这表明Filtek™ Silorane的低收缩率可能不是II类洞临床成功的决定性因素。
本文首次评估了低收缩率复合材料的5年临床性能。