Krämer Norbert, Reinelt Christian, Frankenberger Roland
J Adhes Dent. 2015 Aug;17(5):433-41. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a35010.
To investigate the clinical behavior of two different resin-based restorative systems in Class II cavities in a controlled prospective split-mouth study over 10 years.
Thirty patients received 68 resin composite restorations (Solobond M + Grandio: n = 36; Syntac + Tetric Ceram: n = 32) by one dentist in a private practice. 35% of cavities revealed no enamel at the bottom of the proximal box, 48% of cavities provided < 0.5 mm of remaining proximal enamel. Restorations were examined according to modified USPHS criteria at baseline, after 6 months, and 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 years.
Twenty-nine out of 30 patients attended the 10-year recall. The overall success rate of all restorations was 96.9%. One Grandio restoration suffered marginal fracture with exposed dentin and one Tetric Ceram restoration failed due to cusp fracture. After 10 years, Grandio showed higher surface roughness (p = 0.03) and less color match (p = 0.024; Mann-Whitney U-test). Molar restorations performed worse than premolar fillings regarding marginal integrity (4 and 10 years), filling integrity (4, 8, and 10 years), and tooth integrity (4, 8, and 10 years). The main reasons for degradation of resin composites were chipping and cracks in molar restorations after 8 years. Beyond the 4-year recall, marginal staining increased (43% bravo for stained margins at four years, 52% at 8 years, and 71% at 10 years). Tooth integrity deteriorated significantly due to more enamel cracks and chipping over time (9% at baseline and 89% after 10 years (p<0.05).
Direct resin composite restorations performed satisfactorily over 10 years of clinical service.
在一项为期10年的对照前瞻性双侧对照研究中，调查两种不同的树脂基修复系统在II类洞中的临床性能。
30名患者在私人诊所由一名牙医进行了68颗树脂复合材料修复（Solobond M + Grandio：n = 36；Syntac + Tetric Ceram：n = 32）。35%的洞在邻面盒底部无釉质，48%的洞剩余邻面釉质小于0.5mm。在基线、6个月、1年、2年、4年、6年、8年和10年后，根据改良的美国公共卫生服务标准对修复体进行检查。
30名患者中有29名参加了10年的回访。所有修复体的总体成功率为96.9%。一颗Grandio修复体发生边缘折断并暴露牙本质，一颗Tetric Ceram修复体因牙尖折断而失败。10年后，Grandio显示出更高的表面粗糙度（p = 0.03）和更低的颜色匹配度（p = 0.024；Mann-Whitney U检验）。在边缘完整性（4年和10年）、充填完整性（4年、8年和10年）和牙齿完整性（4年、8年和10年）方面，磨牙修复体的表现比前磨牙充填体差。树脂复合材料降解的主要原因是8年后磨牙修复体出现崩裂和裂纹。在4年回访之后，边缘染色增加（4年时边缘染色为43%，8年时为52%，10年时为71%）。随着时间的推移，由于更多的釉质裂纹和崩裂，牙齿完整性显著恶化（基线时为9%，10年后为89%（p<0.05））。
直接树脂复合材料修复体在10年的临床应用中表现令人满意。
