Davis R D, Mayhew R B
J Am Dent Assoc. 1986 May;112(5):659-63. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1986.0081.
An in vivo comparison was made of three different types of restorative resins: a conventional composite resin, a chemically cured microfilled resin, and a small-particle, glass-filled, visible light-cured composite resin. Twenty-eight sets of three restorations were placed 20 patients and examined using the Ryge rating system. All resins performed well and were not significantly different from one another at 1 year. After 3 years, all materials were considered satisfactory, but the conventional composite resins had significantly more surface roughness than did the other resins. Each of the resin materials also declined in color match after 3 years.
一种传统复合树脂、一种化学固化微填料树脂和一种小颗粒、玻璃填料、可见光固化复合树脂。在20名患者中放置了28组三种修复体，并使用Ryge评级系统进行检查。所有树脂在1年时表现良好，彼此之间无显著差异。3年后，所有材料都被认为是令人满意的，但传统复合树脂的表面粗糙度明显高于其他树脂。三种树脂材料在3年后的颜色匹配度也都有所下降。
