Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Goethestr. 70, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Dent Mater. 2018 Jun;34(6):e138-e147. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.023. Epub 2018 Apr 7.
The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single- or multi-surface cavities.
46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in 14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 stress bearing class I and 45 class II cavities, were assessed.
Ten failed restorations were observed during the follow-up period, four Tetric Ceram restorations failed due to secondary caries (2), tooth fracture (1) and bulk fracture combined with secondary caries (1) whereas six QuiXfil restorations failed due to secondary caries (1), tooth fracture (2), secondary caries combined with restoration fracture (1), restoration fracture (1) and postoperative sensitivity (1). Fisher's exact test yielded no significant difference between both materials (p=0.487).
Both materials, bulk fill QuiXfil restorations and Tetric Ceram restorations, showed highly clinical effectiveness during the 10-year follow-up.
本 RCT 的目的是比较 QuiXfil 和 Tetric Ceram 在单个或多个后牙区表面窝洞中的 10 年临床性能。
46 个 QuiXfil（Xeno III）和 50 个 Tetric Ceram（Syntac classic）复合修复体被放置在第一或第二磨牙的 14 个受力 I 类和 82 个 II 类窝洞中。使用改良的美国公共卫生服务标准，在基线和长达 10 年的时间内进行临床评估。在最后一次随访期间，对 11 个受力 I 类和 45 个 II 类窝洞中 26 个 QuiXfil 和 30 个 Tetric Ceram 修复体进行了评估。
在随访期间观察到 10 个修复体失败，4 个 Tetric Ceram 修复体因继发龋（2）、牙折（1）和大块折裂合并继发龋（1）而失败，而 6 个 QuiXfil 修复体因继发龋（1）、牙折（2）、继发龋合并修复体折裂（1）、修复体折裂（1）和术后敏感（1）而失败。Fisher 确切概率法显示两种材料之间无显著性差异（p=0.487）。
两种材料，块状充填 QuiXfil 修复体和 Tetric Ceram 修复体，在 10 年的随访中均表现出高度的临床效果。
