Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Clin Oral Investig. 2024 Mar 9;28(3):207. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-05570-0.
To compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative and a nano-ceramic composite resin (CR) in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxist individuals in a 60-month randomized clinical trial.
Twenty-five bruxist candidates having NCCLs were recruited in this clinical study. The depth, height (cervico-incisal), width (mesio-distal), internal angles of the NCCLs, degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival index (GI) were measured. One hundred-and-forty-eight NCCLs were restored either with a GH restorative (Equia Forte Fil) or a CR (Ceram.X One Universal). Modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate restorations after 1 week and 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact and Cochran Q tests were run for analysis. Survival rates of the restorations were compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.05).
After 60 months, 97 restorations in 15 patients were examined. The recall rate was 60.0%. Retention rates were 73.5% for CR and 66.7% for GH. A total of 29 restorations were lost (13CR (26.5%), 16GH (33.3%)). There was not a significant difference between tested restoratives in retention (p = 0.464), marginal adaptation (p = 0.856) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.273). There was no relationship between internal angle, depth, height or width and retention of the GH or CR restorations (p > 0.05). The increase in retention loss and marginal discoloration of both restorations over time were significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity or secondary caries were not detected after 60 months.
GH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism.
After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.
在一项为期 60 个月的随机临床试验中，比较玻璃混合（GH）修复体和纳米陶瓷复合树脂（CR）在磨牙症患者非龋性颈（牙合）面缺损（NCCLs）修复中的临床性能。
本临床研究共招募了 25 名磨牙症患者，纳入了 NCCLs 患者。测量了 NCCLs 的深度、高度（龈切向）、宽度（近远中向）、内角、牙齿磨损程度（TWI）和牙龈指数（GI）。148 个 NCCLs 分别用 GH 修复体（Equia Forte Fil）或 CR（Ceram.X One Universal）修复。修复后 1 周、12、24、36 和 60 个月时采用改良美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准进行评价。采用 Pearson Chi-Square 检验、Fisher's Exact 检验和 Cochran Q 检验进行分析。采用 Kaplan-Meier 分析比较修复体的生存率（p<0.05）。
60 个月后，15 名患者中有 97 个修复体被检查。召回率为 60.0%。CR 的保留率为 73.5%，GH 为 66.7%。共有 29 个修复体丢失（13 个 CR（26.5%），16 个 GH（33.3%））。两种修复体的保留率无显著差异（p=0.464），边缘适合性（p=0.856）和边缘变色（p=0.273）也无显著差异。GH 或 CR 修复体的内角、深度、高度或宽度与保留率之间无相关性（p>0.05）。两种修复体的保留丢失和边缘变色随时间的增加均有显著变化（p<0.001）。60 个月后未发现敏感性或继发龋。
在磨牙症患者中，60 个月后 GH 和纳米陶瓷 CR 在 NCCLs 修复中表现出相似的临床效果。
60 个月后，CR 和 GH 材料在磨牙症患者的 NCCLs 修复中表现出可接受的临床效果。
