Hurley E, Da Mata C, Stewart C, Kinirons M
University Dental School and Hospital, University College Cork, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2015 Mar;16(1):78-82.
To study the outcomes for restored primary molar teeth; to examine outcomes in relation to tooth type involved, intracoronal restoration complexity and to the material used.
Retrospective study of primary molar teeth restored by intracoronal restorations. A series of restored primary molar teeth for children aged 6-12 years was studied. The principal outcome measure was failure of initial restoration (re-restoration or extraction). Three hundred patient records were studied to include three equal groups of primary molar teeth restored with amalgam, composite or glass ionomer, respectively. Restorative materials, the restoration type, simple (single surface) or complex (multi-surface) restoration, and tooth notation were recorded. Subsequent interventions were examined. Data were coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel database and analysis undertaken using SPSS v.18. Statistical differences were tested using the Chi square test of statistical significance.
Of the 300 teeth studied, 61 restoration failures were recorded with 11 of those extracted. No significant differences were found between outcomes for upper first, upper second, lower first or lower second primary molars. Outcomes for simple primary teeth restored by intracoronal restorations were significantly better than those for complex intracoronal restorations (P = 0.042). Teeth originally restored with amalgam accounted for 19.7% of the 61 failures, composite for 29.5%, while teeth restored with glass ionomer represented 50.8% of all restoration failures. The differences were significant (P = 0.012).
The majority (79.7%) of the 300 restored primary teeth studied were successful, and 3.7% teeth were extracted. Restorations involving more than one surface had almost twice the failure rate of single surface restorations. The difference was significant. Significant differences in failure rates for the three dental materials studied were recorded. Amalgam had the lowest failure rate while the failure rate with glass ionomer was the highest.
研究乳磨牙修复后的效果；探讨与患牙类型、冠内修复复杂性及所用材料相关的修复效果。
对采用冠内修复的乳磨牙进行回顾性研究。研究了一系列6至12岁儿童的乳磨牙修复情况。主要观察指标为初始修复失败（再次修复或拔除）。研究了300份患者记录，包括分别用银汞合金、复合树脂或玻璃离子体修复的三组等量乳磨牙。记录修复材料、修复类型（简单修复：单面；复杂修复：多面）及患牙标识。检查后续干预措施。数据编码后录入Microsoft Excel数据库，并使用SPSS v.18进行分析。采用卡方检验统计显著性差异。
在研究的300颗牙齿中，记录到61例修复失败，其中11颗被拔除。上颌第一乳磨牙、上颌第二乳磨牙、下颌第一乳磨牙或下颌第二乳磨牙的修复效果之间未发现显著差异。冠内修复的简单乳磨牙修复效果显著优于复杂冠内修复（P = 0.042）。最初用银汞合金修复的牙齿占61例失败病例的19.7%，复合树脂修复的占29.5%，而用玻璃离子体修复的牙齿占所有修复失败病例的50.8%。差异具有显著性（P = 0.012）。
在研究的300颗修复乳磨牙中，大多数（79.7%）修复成功，3.7%的牙齿被拔除。涉及多个面的修复失败率几乎是单面修复的两倍。差异具有显著性。在所研究的三种牙科材料的失败率方面记录到显著差异。银汞合金的失败率最低，而玻璃离子体修复的失败率最高。
