Suppr超能文献

基于树脂的复合材料与树脂改性玻璃离子体治疗颈部龋损的长期临床比较

Long-term clinical comparison of a resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.

作者信息

Koç-Vural Uzay, Kerimova-Köse Leyla, Kiremitci Arlin

机构信息

Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.

Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.

出版信息

Odontology. 2025 Jan;113(1):404-415. doi: 10.1007/s10266-024-00958-6. Epub 2024 Jun 5.

Abstract

This 72-month study compared the clinical effectiveness of a resin-based composite (RBC) (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Riva Light Cure, SDI) in restoring cervical caries lesions (CCLs). Thirty-three patients, each with at least two CCLs, were enrolled. After caries removal, the dimensions of the cavities were recorded. In a split-mouth study design, a total of 110 restorations were randomly placed. Fifty-five restorations were placed with RBC using an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Prime&Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona), while the remaining 55 were restored with RMGIC. The restorations were assessed at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 60, and 72 months according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis included Pearson Chi-square, Friedman tests, Kaplan Meier, and Logistic Regression analysis (p < 0.05). After 72 months, 47 restorations in 19 patients were evaluated (55% follow-up rate). Seventy-five percent of the RBC (n = 26) and 74% (n = 21) of the RMGIC restorations were fully retained. There were no significant differences between materials regarding retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). Cavity dimensions, caries activity, and retention exhibited no correlation (p > 0.05). The increase in marginal staining in both groups over time was significant (p < 0.001). RMGIC restorations exhibited higher discoloration than RBC restorations (p = 0.014). At 72 months, three secondary caries lesions were detected in both restoration groups: two RMGIC and one RBC. There were no reports of sensitivity. After 72 months, both RBC and RMGIC restorations were clinically successful, with similar retention and marginal adaptation scores. However, it is noteworthy that RMGIC restorations tend to discoloration over time compared to RBC. The trial is registered in the database of "Clinical Trials". The registration number is NCT0372-2758, October 29, 2018.

摘要

这项为期72个月的研究比较了树脂基复合材料(RBC)(Spectrum TPH3,登士柏西诺德公司)与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC)(Riva Light Cure,SDI公司)修复颈部龋损(CCL)的临床效果。招募了33名患者,每名患者至少有两处CCL。去除龋坏组织后,记录窝洞尺寸。采用半口研究设计,共随机放置110个修复体。55个修复体使用酸蚀冲洗粘结系统(Prime&Bond NT,登士柏西诺德公司)用RBC进行修复,其余55个用RMGIC修复。根据改良的美国公共卫生署标准,在基线、6、12、18、24、36、60和72个月时对修复体进行评估。统计分析包括Pearson卡方检验、Friedman检验、Kaplan Meier分析和逻辑回归分析(p<0.05)。72个月后,对19名患者的47个修复体进行了评估(随访率55%)。75%的RBC修复体(n=26)和74%的RMGIC修复体(n=21)完全保留。在保留率和边缘适应性方面,两种材料之间无显著差异(p>0.05)。窝洞尺寸、龋活性和保留率之间无相关性(p>0.05)。两组边缘染色随时间的增加均具有显著性(p<0.001)。RMGIC修复体的变色程度高于RBC修复体(p=0.014)。72个月时,两个修复组均检测到3处继发龋损:2处RMGIC修复体和1处RBC修复体。无敏感报告。72个月后,RBC和RMGIC修复体在临床上均获成功,保留率和边缘适应性评分相似。然而,值得注意的是,与RBC相比,RMGIC修复体随时间推移有变色倾向。该试验已在“临床试验”数据库中注册。注册号为NCT0372 - 2758,2018年10月29日。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验