Yazici Ayse Ruya, Kutuk Zeynep Bilge, Ergin Esra, Karahan Sevilay, Antonson Sibel A
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Department of Biostatistics, School of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Jan;26(1):417-426. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04015-2. Epub 2021 Jun 10.
This study aims to compare the performance of a bulk-fill and a nanofill resin composite in class II restorations after 6 years.
Fifty patients having at least two class II carious lesions were recruited for the study. One lesion in each patient was randomly assigned to be restored using either the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TB) or Filtek Ultimate (FU) resin composites with their respective adhesives. One hundred four restorations were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually over the course of 6 years by two examiners using modified USPHS criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and Cochran Q tests (p < 0.05).
Sixty-six restorations in 33 patients were evaluated after 6 years. Only one restoration was lost from FU group at 5 years. At the end of 6 years, marginal discoloration was observed in three (9.1%) TB and eight (36.4%) FU restorations creating a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05). The FU group showed a significant increase in marginal discoloration at 6 years from the baseline (p < 0.05). Marginal adaptation was rated as Bravo for 9.1% and 24.2% of TB and FU restorations, respectively (p > 0.05). Significant degradation was observed within each group in terms of marginal adaptation (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the other criteria tested (p > 0.05).
Bulk-fill restorations performed better for marginal discoloration. The remaining clinical performance criteria of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations were similar after 6 years.
Bulk-fill resin might be a better alternative to incrementally placed restorative in terms of marginal discoloration under clinical conditions.
本研究旨在比较6年后Ⅱ类洞修复中大块充填树脂复合材料和纳米充填树脂复合材料的性能。
招募了至少有两个Ⅱ类龋损的50名患者参与本研究。每位患者的一处龋损被随机分配使用Tetric EvoCeram大块充填树脂（TB）或Filtek Ultimate（FU）树脂复合材料及其各自的粘结剂进行修复。由两名经过校准的操作人员放置了104个修复体。两名检查人员在基线时以及在6年的时间里每年使用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准对修复体进行评估。使用卡方检验和 Cochr an Q检验对数据进行统计学分析（p < 0.05）。
6年后对33名患者的66个修复体进行了评估。FU组在5年时仅有一个修复体失败。在6年结束时，在3个（9.1%）TB修复体和8个（36.4%）FU修复体中观察到边缘变色，两组之间存在显著差异（p < 0.05）。FU组在6年时边缘变色相对于基线有显著增加（p < 0.05）。边缘密合性在TB和FU修复体中分别有9.1%和24.2%被评为优秀（p > 0.05）。在每组中均观察到边缘密合性有显著下降（p < 0.05）。在测试的其他标准方面，两组之间没有统计学上的显著差异（p > 0.05）。
大块充填修复体在边缘变色方面表现更好。6年后，大块充填树脂复合材料和纳米充填树脂复合材料修复体的其余临床性能标准相似。
在临床条件下，就边缘变色而言，大块充填树脂可能是分次放置修复材料的更好替代选择。
