Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Departamento de Materiais Dentários, Endodontia e Dentística, Bauru, SP, Brasil.
Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Saúde Pública, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.
J Appl Oral Sci. 2021 Mar 1;29:e20200609. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0609. eCollection 2021.
To compare the effectiveness of ART restorations using High Viscosity Glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) with conventional restorations using resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth, in a 2-year follow-up.
Seventy-seven restorations were made with each restorative material, Equia Fil-GC Corporation (ART restorations) and Z350-3M (conventional restoration), in 54 participants in this parallel and randomized clinical trial. Restorations were evaluated at 6 months, 1 and 2 years using the ART and the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Chi-square test and Survival Analysis (p<0.05) were used for statistical analysis.
The success rates for ART restorations were 98.7% (6 months) and 95.8% (1 year) for both criteria. At 2 years, success rate was 92% and 90.3% when scored by the modified USPHS and ART criteria (p=0.466), respectively. The success rates for conventional restorations were 100% (6 months), 98.7% (1 year) and 91.5% (2 years) for both assessment criteria. ART restorations presented a lower survival rate by the criterion of ART (83.7%) when compared to the modified USPHS criterion of (87.8%), after 2 years (p=0.051). The survival of conventional restorations was 90.7% for both evaluation criteria.
At the 2-years follow-up evaluation, no statistically significant difference was observed between the success rate of ART restorations with HVGIC compared to conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth.
在为期 2 年的随访中，比较使用高粘度玻璃离子水门汀（HVGIC）的 ART 修复体与使用树脂复合材料的常规修复体在恒牙 II 类窝洞中的疗效。
在这项平行随机临床试验中，共有 54 名参与者分别使用两种修复材料（Equia Fil-GC 公司的 ART 修复体和 Z350-3M 的常规修复体）制作了 77 个修复体。使用 ART 和改良美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准在 6 个月、1 年和 2 年时对修复体进行评估。使用卡方检验和生存分析（p<0.05）进行统计分析。
ART 修复体的成功率在两种标准下分别为 98.7%（6 个月）和 95.8%（1 年）。在 2 年时，根据改良 USPHS 和 ART 标准，成功率分别为 92%和 90.3%（p=0.466）。常规修复体的成功率在两种评估标准下均为 100%（6 个月）、98.7%（1 年）和 91.5%（2 年）。根据 ART 标准，ART 修复体的存活率（83.7%）低于改良 USPHS 标准（87.8%），2 年后差异有统计学意义（p=0.051）。常规修复体的存活率在两种评估标准下均为 90.7%。
在 2 年的随访评估中，使用 HVGIC 的 ART 修复体与使用树脂复合材料的常规修复体在恒牙 II 类窝洞中的成功率无统计学差异。
