Albashaireh Zakereyya S M, Maghaireh Ghada A, Alsaafeen Hala N
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science & Technology, P.O. BOX 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan.
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science & Technology, P.O. BOX 3030, Irbid 22110, Jordan.
J Dent. 2023 Dec;139:104740. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104740. Epub 2023 Oct 8.
To evaluate the effects, of using silane coupling agent within the procedures of repairing old composite restorations with or without sandblasting their surfaces, on the clinical performance of repaired composite restorations.
The study involved repairing 130 Class I and II defective composite restorations. After recurrent caries removal, the repair process included etching with 37 % phosphoric acid, Adper Single Bond 2 application for bonding and Filtek Z250 composite for restoring all defects. The restoration surfaces were subjected to one of the following additional surface treatments within the repair process: Control: No additional treatment; the Silane-Adhesive treatment: A separate step involved the application of a silane coupling agent after acid etching; and the Sandblast-Silane-Adhesive treatment: included intra-oral sandblasting of old composite surfaces followed by silane application. Two calibrated examiners evaluated all repaired restorations according to a modified USPHS criteria after 6 months. Comparisons of the clinical performance between the treatment groups were made using Chi-square test, while responses to cold tests before and after repair treatment were made using Wilcoxon's Signed Rank's (α = 0.05).
Of 130 cases, only 116 cases turned up for evaluation. The primary reasons for composite repair were recurrent caries and anatomical deficiencies. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for all clinical criteria (p > 0.05). The control group experienced one total and two partial retention losses.
The application of a silane coupling agent, with or without intra-oral sandblasting, demonstrated no improvement on the clinical performance of repaired posterior composites after 6-months.
Surface treatment of defective composite restorations using silane with intra-oral sandblasting within their repair process offered marginal improvement in their clinical performance over conventional etching technique, but insignificantly so. Repair reduced exaggerated cold test responses and eliminated POS within 6-months. Repair reduces cold sensitivity and promotes restoration longevity. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the registration number NCT06005571.
评估在对旧复合树脂修复体进行表面喷砂或不喷砂处理的修复过程中使用硅烷偶联剂，对修复后复合树脂修复体临床性能的影响。
本研究涉及修复130例I类和II类复合树脂修复体缺损。去除继发龋后，修复过程包括用37%磷酸酸蚀、应用Adper Single Bond 2进行粘结以及使用Filtek Z250复合树脂修复所有缺损。在修复过程中，修复体表面接受以下额外表面处理之一：对照组：不进行额外处理；硅烷 - 粘结剂处理：在酸蚀后单独进行一步硅烷偶联剂的应用；喷砂 - 硅烷 - 粘结剂处理：包括对旧复合树脂表面进行口内喷砂，然后应用硅烷。6个月后，两名经过校准的检查者根据修改后的美国公共卫生服务标准评估所有修复后的修复体。使用卡方检验对治疗组之间的临床性能进行比较，而使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验（α = 0.05）对修复治疗前后的冷测试反应进行比较。
130例中，仅116例前来评估。复合树脂修复的主要原因是继发龋和解剖学缺陷。在所有临床标准方面，各组之间未发现统计学上的显著差异（p > 0.05）。对照组出现1例完全和2例部分固位丧失。
6个月后，无论是否进行口内喷砂，应用硅烷偶联剂均未改善修复后后牙复合树脂的临床性能。
在修复过程中对有缺陷的复合树脂修复体进行硅烷结合口内喷砂的表面处理，与传统酸蚀技术相比，其临床性能有轻微改善，但不显著。修复在6个月内减少了过度的冷测试反应并消除了阳性体征。修复降低了冷敏感性并提高了修复体的使用寿命。本临床试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册，注册号为NCT06005571。
