Policlinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Jena University Hospital, An der alten Post 4, 07743, Jena, Germany.
Department of Surgical Sciences, Marquette University, Milwaukee, USA.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 May;22(4):1651-1662. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2226-8. Epub 2017 Oct 28.
The use of LED light-curing units (LED LCUs) for polymerising resin-based composite restorations has become widespread throughout dentistry. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of clinical longitudinal studies that evaluate the comparative efficacy of LED-based polymerisation in direct posterior composite restorations. The aim of the present study was to investigate the performance of class I and II resin composite restorations for two successful composite restorative materials cured with LED versus halogen LCUs.
One hundred restorations were placed using the nano-filled composites Grandio® or Filtek™ Supremé. The following test groups were established: LED-Grandio® n = 23 (LG), LED-Filtek™ Supremé n = 21 (LS). As controls were used: Halogen-Grandio® n = 28 (HG), Halogen-Filtek™ Supremé n = 28 (HS). All restorations were evaluated according to the clinical criteria of the CPM index (C-criteria) at baseline and after 6, 12 and 36 months.
After 12 and 36 months, there were no significant differences between restorations polymerised with LED or halogen light. At the end of the study, 97% of the restorations showed sufficient results regardless of the employed LCU or composite. Globally, after 36 months, 56% of all restorations were assessed with code 0 (excellent) and 41% with code 1 (acceptable). In detail, excellent results (code 0) among the criteria surface quality; marginal integrity and marginal discoloration were assigned in 72, 70 and 69%.
For the current limitations in the clinical trial design, the results showed that LED-polymerisation is appropriate to ensure clinical success of direct posterior resin composite restorations in a range of 3 years.
The choice of LCU has no significant influence on the clinical performance of posterior direct resin composite restorations within 3 years of wear.
LED 光固化器（LED LCUs）在牙科领域中广泛用于聚合树脂基复合材料修复体。然而，目前缺乏临床纵向研究来评估 LED 基聚合在直接后牙复合修复体中的比较效果。本研究的目的是评估两种成功的复合修复材料（使用 LED 或卤素 LCUs 聚合的 Grandio®和 Filtek™ Supreme 纳米复合树脂）的 I 类和 II 类树脂复合材料修复体的性能。
使用 Grandio®纳米复合材料或 Filtek™ Supreme 纳米复合材料共放置了 100 个修复体。建立了以下测试组：LED-Grandio®n=23（LG），LED-Filtek™Supremén=21（LS）。对照组为：卤素-Grandio®n=28（HG），卤素-Filtek™Supremén=28（HS）。所有修复体均根据 CPM 指数（C 标准）的临床标准在基线以及 6、12 和 36 个月时进行评估。
在 12 和 36 个月时，LED 或卤素光聚合的修复体之间没有显著差异。在研究结束时，97%的修复体无论使用的 LCU 或复合材料均显示出足够的效果。总体而言，在 36 个月后，所有修复体中有 56%被评为 0 分（优秀），41%被评为 1 分（可接受）。具体而言，在表面质量、边缘完整性和边缘变色这三个标准中，72%、70%和 69%的修复体被评为优秀（代码 0）。
由于临床试验设计的限制，结果表明 LED 聚合能够确保直接后牙树脂复合材料修复体在 3 年的使用期内的临床成功。
在 3 年的使用期内，LCU 的选择对后牙直接树脂复合材料修复体的临床性能没有显著影响。
