Staněk Ján, Riad Abanoub, Le Adam, Bernát Matěj, Hammal Milad, Azar Basel
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacký University Olomouc, 775 15 Olomouc, Czech Republic.
Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, 625 00 Brno, Czech Republic.
Materials (Basel). 2022 Jan 2;15(1):312. doi: 10.3390/ma15010312.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical performance, survival, and complications of indirect composite inlays, onlays, and overlays on posterior teeth. Digital records of 282 patients treated between 2014 and 2018 were accessed and analyzed retrospectively. The included patients received 469 composite restorations luted with seven different resin-based types of cement, i.e., Filtek Ultimate Flow, Enamel Plus, Relyx Ultimate, Harvard Premium Flow, Relyx Unicem, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable, and Filtek Ultimate. The restorations had been clinically and radiographically evaluated annually. The mechanical and clinical complications, e.g., debonding, fracture, and secondary caries, were evaluated and recorded. The examined restorations exhibited a high survival rate (84.9%), and failure was found in only 71 cases. Fracture was the most common cause (n = 36), followed by prosthetic work release (n = 19) and secondary caries (n = 16). There was a statistically significant difference between failure and cement material (Sig. < 0.001); the composite-based cements (87.2%) had a high survival rate compared to the resin-based cement (72.7%). Similarly, the cements with high viscosity (90.2%) had significantly higher survival rates than the low-viscosity cements (78.9%). Moreover, onlays showed higher longevity compared to overlays (Sig. = 0.007), and patients aged under 55 years showed less complications (Sig. = 0.036). Indirect composite restoration was a successful solution to tooth structure loss. The material of the cementation is an important part of the success. Higher survival rate was found in our study when the fixation materials with high viscosity were used, thus suggesting using these materials with indirect restorations. Composite-based cements had significantly higher survival rate than resin-based cements.
本研究的目的是评估后牙间接复合嵌体、高嵌体和覆盖体的临床性能、存留率及并发症。回顾性分析了2014年至2018年间接受治疗的282例患者的数字记录。纳入的患者接受了469颗用七种不同树脂类水门汀粘结的复合树脂修复体，即Filtek Ultimate Flow、Enamel Plus、Relyx Ultimate、Harvard Premium Flow、Relyx Unicem、Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable和Filtek Ultimate。每年对修复体进行临床和影像学评估。评估并记录机械和临床并发症，如脱粘、折断及继发龋。所检查的修复体显示出较高的存留率（84.9%），仅71例出现失败。折断是最常见的原因（n = 36），其次是修复体松动（n = 19）和继发龋（n = 16）。失败与水门汀材料之间存在统计学显著差异（显著性< 0.001）；与树脂类水门汀（72.7%）相比，复合树脂类水门汀（87.2%）具有较高的存留率。同样，高粘度水门汀（90.2%）的存留率显著高于低粘度水门汀（78.9%）。此外，高嵌体的存留时间比覆盖体更长（显著性= 0.007），55岁以下患者的并发症较少（显著性= 0.036）。间接复合树脂修复是牙齿结构丧失的一种成功解决方案。粘结材料是成功的重要组成部分。在我们的研究中，使用高粘度固定材料时发现存留率更高，因此建议在间接修复中使用这些材料。复合树脂类水门汀的存留率显著高于树脂类水门汀。
