Khan Sulthan Ibrahim Raja, Rao Dinesh, Ramachandran Anupama, Ashok Bhaskaran Veni, Alfadley Abdulmohsen
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Pacific Dental College, Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research University, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India.
Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Sep 28;10(5):613-621. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_274_20. eCollection 2020 Sep-Oct.
This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of nanoceramic and microhybrid-based composite restorations in adult patients with different personality traits.
Patients in accordance with the inclusion and exclusion criteria were asked to complete the BFI (Big Five Inventory) questionnaire. Of a total of 323 patients, 124 (67 males and 57 females) patients were categorized into agreeableness and neuroticism traits and were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two subgroups: SG I A ( = 31) and II A ( = 31) for microhybrid composite (Spectrum TPH 3, Dentsply/DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), SG I B ( = 31) and II B ( = 32) for nanoceramic composite restorations (Ceram X mono, Dentsply/DeTrey, Germany). At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the restorations were evaluated using the Modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) evaluation criteria. The Pearson chi-square and the Fisher's exact test were used to assess the difference between the personality traits and restorative material groups where a probability value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Most of the restorations scored alfa (A), whereas very few scored bravo (B) in all the subgroups. However, there were no charlie (C) or delta (D) scores. Overall, Spectrum TPH and Ceram x mono displayed superior performances in retention and postoperative sensitivity than all the other clinical parameters. Furthermore, Ceram x mono restorations showed more surface roughness than Spectrum TPH. No statistical differences in the restoration performance were found between both personalities and restorative material types.
Although neuroticism has an effect on various health outcomes, its impact on the clinical performance of composite restorations during the follow-up period was not observed. In addition, there was no difference between the performance of nanohybrid and microhybrid composite.
本研究旨在比较纳米陶瓷和微混合基复合修复体在具有不同性格特征的成年患者中的临床性能。
符合纳入和排除标准的患者被要求完成大五人格量表（BFI）问卷。在总共323名患者中，124名（67名男性和57名女性）患者被归类为随和性和神经质特质，并纳入研究。患者被随机分为两个亚组：SG I A（n = 31）和II A（n = 31）使用微混合复合树脂（Spectrum TPH 3，德国登士柏/德特雷公司，康斯坦茨），SG I B（n = 31）和II B（n = 32）使用纳米陶瓷复合修复体（Ceram X mono，德国登士柏/德特雷公司）。在基线、6个月和12个月时，使用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）评估标准对修复体进行评估。使用Pearson卡方检验和Fisher精确检验来评估性格特征和修复材料组之间的差异，其中概率值<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
在所有亚组中，大多数修复体评分为阿尔法（A），而评分为布拉沃（B）的很少。然而，没有查理（C）或德尔塔（D）评分。总体而言，Spectrum TPH和Ceram x mono在固位和术后敏感性方面的表现优于所有其他临床参数。此外，Ceram x mono修复体的表面粗糙度比Spectrum TPH更大。在性格和修复材料类型之间未发现修复体性能的统计学差异。
虽然神经质对各种健康结果有影响，但在随访期间未观察到其对复合修复体临床性能的影响。此外，纳米混合和微混合复合材料的性能之间没有差异。
