J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(3):235-247. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a44547.
To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system, EQUIA Forte, with that of a nanohybrid resin composite, Tetric EvoCeram, in two-surface class II cavities.
This multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study was conducted at four different dental schools. In total, 360 restorations were placed in patients in need of two class-II, two-surface restorations in the molar region of the same jaw. Each patient received one glass hybrid restoration (EQUIA Forte, GC) and one resin composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent). Two independent evaluators performed a clinical evaluation of each site after 1 week (baseline), 1 year, and 2 years using the criteria of the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI-2).
The estimated survival rates at the 2-year recall were 93.6% and 94.5% for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram, respectively. There were no significant differences in the survival rates or in any of the evaluated esthetic, functional or biological properties between EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram restorations (p ˃ 0.05).
Both the glass-hybrid restorative system and nanohybrid resin composite showed good clinical performance in moderate to large two-surface class II restorations in a 2-year follow-up.
比较玻璃混合修复系统 EQUIA Forte 和纳米复合树脂 Tetric EvoCeram 在 2 个面 II 类窝洞的临床性能。
这是一项多中心、随机对照临床研究,在四个不同的牙科学校进行。共有 360 名患者需要在同一颌磨牙区进行 2 个 II 类、2 个面的修复,每个患者接受 1 个玻璃混合修复体(EQUIA Forte,GC)和 1 个树脂复合修复体(Tetric EvoCeram,Ivoclar Vivadent)。两位独立评估者在 1 周(基线)、1 年和 2 年时使用 FDI 世界牙科联合会(FDI-2)的标准对每个部位进行临床评估。
在 2 年的随访中,EQUIA Forte 和 Tetric EvoCeram 的估计生存率分别为 93.6%和 94.5%。EQUIA Forte 和 Tetric EvoCeram 修复体之间的生存率或任何评估的美观、功能或生物学特性均无显著差异(p > 0.05)。
在 2 年的随访中,玻璃混合修复系统和纳米复合树脂均在中到大面积的 2 个面 II 类窝洞修复中表现出良好的临床性能。