大块充填与纳米充填复合树脂修复体的36个月临床比较。

Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations.

作者信息

Yazici A R, Antonson S A, Kutuk Z B, Ergin E

出版信息

Oper Dent. 2017 Sep/Oct;42(5):478-485. doi: 10.2341/16-220-C. Epub 2017 Jun 5.

DOI:10.2341/16-220-C

PMID:28581919

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a bulk fill resin composite in class II restorations.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In accordance with a split-mouth design, 50 patients received at least one pair of restorations, restored with a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate [FU]) and with a bulk fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TB]). Each restorative resin was used with its respective adhesive system according to the manufacturers' instructions. A total of 104 class II restorations were placed by two operators. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and at six, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test.

RESULTS

At six, 12, 18, and 24 months, the recall rate was 100%, 98%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. At 36 months, 81 restorations were evaluated in 39 patients with a recall rate of 78%. For marginal adaptation, four restorations from the TB group and 10 from the FU group rated as Bravo. Two restorations from the TB and eight restorations from the FU group showed marginal discoloration. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p<0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p>0.05). One restored tooth from the FU group was crowned. The retention rates for the TB and the FU groups were 100%. In the FU group, two restorations showed slightly rough surfaces, and two showed a slight mismatch in color. None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form.

CONCLUSIONS

The tested bulk fill restorative resin demonstrated better clinical performance in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估纳米填料和大块填料树脂复合材料在Ⅱ类洞修复中的临床性能。

方法和材料

按照双侧对照设计，50例患者接受了至少一对修复体，分别用纳米填料树脂复合材料（Filtek Ultimate [FU]）和大块填料树脂复合材料（Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TB]）进行修复。每种修复树脂均按照制造商的说明与各自的粘结系统配合使用。由两名操作人员共放置了104个Ⅱ类洞修复体。在基线以及6、12、18、24和36个月时，由两名检查人员采用改良的美国公共卫生服务部Ryge标准对修复体进行盲法评估。使用卡方检验（α = 0.05）对两类修复材料进行比较。使用 Cochr an Q检验将基线分数与复查时的分数进行比较。

结果

在6、12、18和24个月时，复查率分别为100%、98%、94%和82%，保留率为100%。在36个月时，对39例患者的81个修复体进行了评估，复查率为78%。对于边缘适应性，TB组有4个修复体和FU组有10个修复体评定为优。TB组有2个修复体和FU组有8个修复体出现边缘变色。两种修复树脂在边缘适应性和边缘变色方面存在统计学显著差异（p < 0.05）。在保留率方面，两种修复树脂之间未观察到差异（p > 0.05）。FU组有一颗修复牙进行了全冠修复。TB组和FU组的保留率均为100%。在FU组中，有2个修复体表面略显粗糙，2个修复体颜色略有不匹配。所有修复体均未出现术后敏感、继发龋或解剖形态丧失。