Department of Morphology, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Brazil.
Am J Dent. 2022 Apr;35(2):89-96.
To evaluate the clinical longevity of bulk-fill resins and ormocer composites compared to conventional nanofill and nanohybrid resins in posterior permanent teeth.
PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Scielo were electronically searched for randomized clinical trials, without language restrictions. The extracted data were analyzed using Review Manager, comparing the clinical behavior of bulk fill or ormocer restorations with nanofill or nanohybrid resins. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level of 5% for all analyses (P= 0.05). The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane assessment tool.
11 randomized clinical trials were included, with an average follow-up time of 40.36 months. A total of 812 restorations were evaluated and 58 failures were analyzed: 18 of the 253 bulk-fill restorations (7.11%), 21 of the 173 (12.3%) ormocer restorations, and 20 of the 386 (5.18%) control group (nanofill or nanohybrid composites) restorations failed. In the meta-analysis, there was no significant difference between the bulk-fill and the control group (statistical power = 24.38%; P= 0.206; IC = 95%); whereas, when comparing between ormocer and control group, the control group exhibited better performance (statistical power = 81.62%; P= 0.0042; IC = 95%).
Conventional nanofill and nanohybrid resins exhibited better clinical longevity than ormocer composites in posterior restorations, but when compared to bulk fill, they had similar performance.
评估在后牙永久修复中，与传统纳米复合树脂相比，块状填充树脂和有机硅树脂复合材料的临床耐用性。
通过电子检索 PubMed、Web of Science、Scopus、Science Direct、Cochrane 图书馆和 Scielo，无语言限制地检索随机临床试验。使用 Review Manager 分析提取的数据，比较块状填充或有机硅树脂修复体与纳米复合树脂的临床行为。所有分析均采用 5%的显著性水平（P=0.05）进行统计分析。使用 Cochrane 评估工具评估偏倚风险。
共纳入 11 项随机临床试验，平均随访时间为 40.36 个月。共评估了 812 个修复体，分析了 58 个失败病例：253 个块状填充修复体中有 18 个（7.11%）、173 个有机硅树脂修复体中有 21 个（12.3%）和 386 个对照组（纳米复合树脂）修复体中有 20 个（5.18%）失败。在荟萃分析中，块状填充组与对照组之间无显著差异（统计效力=24.38%；P=0.206；置信区间[CI]95%）；然而，当比较有机硅树脂组和对照组时，对照组表现出更好的性能（统计效力=81.62%；P=0.0042；CI 95%）。
在后牙修复中，传统纳米复合树脂和纳米复合树脂表现出比有机硅树脂复合材料更好的临床耐用性，但与块状填充相比，它们具有相似的性能。
