生物活性可注射树脂复合材料与传统纳米混合复合材料用于后牙修复的临床评价：一项18个月的随机对照临床试验

Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Injectable Resin Composite vs Conventional Nanohybrid Composite in Posterior Restorations: An 18-Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

作者信息

Elderiny Hazem M, Khallaf Yomna S, Akah Mai M, Hassanein Olfat E

机构信息

Department of Operative Dentistry, Horus University, New Damietta, Damietta, Egypt, Phone: +01007775635, e-mail:

Department of Operative Dentistry, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1541-6813.

出版信息

J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Aug 1;25(8):794-802. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3737.

DOI:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3737

PMID:39653674

Abstract

AIM

To evaluate the clinical performance of bioactive injectable resin composite vs nanohybrid resin composite in restoring carious posterior teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 18 patients with 26 class I and II carious cavities were recruited. Teeth were divided into two groups ( = 13): group I: Bioactive injectable resin composite (Beautifil Flow Plus X F00) while group II: Nanohybrid resin composite (Tetric N-Ceram) and were restored according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months. Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed with a significant level set at ( ≤ 0.05). Using the Chi-squared test and Cochran's test. The survival rate was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests.

RESULTS

Inter- and intra-group comparisons showed no statistically significant difference between bioactive injectable resin composite and nanohybrid resin composite at different time intervals in terms of anatomical form, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between both materials regarding the overall survival rate after 18 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical performance of bioactive injectable resin composite and nanohybrid resin composite was similar and found to be clinically acceptable after 18 months of clinical use.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Bioactive injectable resin composite can be used to restore occlusal anatomy as a nanohybrid resin composite in restoring posterior cavities with acceptable clinical performance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

It was registered in (www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov) database in June 2022, with identification number NCT05499494. How to cite this article: Elderiny HM, Khallaf YS, Akah MM, et al. Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Injectable Resin Composite vs Conventional Nanohybrid Composite in Posterior Restorations: An 18-Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(8):794-802.

摘要

目的

评估生物活性可注射树脂复合材料与纳米混合树脂复合材料修复后牙龋洞的临床性能。

材料与方法

共招募了18例患有26个I类和II类龋洞的患者。将牙齿分为两组（每组n = 13）：第一组：生物活性可注射树脂复合材料（Beautifil Flow Plus X F00），第二组：纳米混合树脂复合材料（Tetric N-Ceram），并按照制造商的说明进行修复。在基线、6个月、12个月和18个月时，使用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准对修复体进行评估。将数据制成表格，并进行统计学分析，显著性水平设定为α≤0.05。使用卡方检验和 Cochr an检验。使用Kaplan-Meier和对数秩检验分析生存率。

结果

组间和组内比较显示，在不同时间间隔，生物活性可注射树脂复合材料与纳米混合树脂复合材料在解剖形态、边缘适应性、继发龋、边缘染色、术后敏感性方面均无统计学显著差异。此外，两种材料在18个月后的总体生存率方面也无统计学显著差异。

结论

生物活性可注射树脂复合材料和纳米混合树脂复合材料的临床性能相似，临床使用18个月后在临床上是可接受的。

临床意义

生物活性可注射树脂复合材料可用于恢复咬合解剖结构，如同纳米混合树脂复合材料一样，在修复后牙龋洞方面具有可接受的临床性能。

试验注册

于2022年6月在（www.CLINICALTRIALS.gov）数据库注册，识别号为NCT05499494。如何引用本文：Elderiny HM, Khallaf YS, Akah MM,等。生物活性可注射树脂复合材料与传统纳米混合复合材料在后牙修复中的临床评价：一项18个月的随机对照临床试验。《当代牙科实践杂志》2024；25(8):794 - 802。