Soler-Tornero Carlos, Toivonen Pekka, Suorsa Jaakko, Karhula Sakari S, Saarakkala Simo, Anttonen Vuokko, Leinonen Jukka
Institute of Dentistry, School of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, Kuopio, FI-70211, Finland.
Research Unit of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Apr 22;29(5):261. doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06342-0.
The study aims to evaluate the effect of contouring instruments on the porosity and immediate quality of direct dental restorations.
Fifteen human molars with 30 Class II and 10 Class V cavities were restored by five voluntary dentists using three contouring instruments (conventional steel, silicone-tipped and diamond-like carbon coated-instruments) and three filling materials (Admira Fusion, Filtek Supreme XTE and Fuji II LC). The restorations were evaluated for immediate quality, porosity and number of pores using stereomicroscope and micro-computed tomography. Statistical analysis included the Shapiro‒Wilk test for normality, one-way ANOVA with Holm‒Sidak post hoc test for normal data, Kruskal‒Wallis ANOVA and Dunn's test for non-normal data, and Fisher's exact test for restoration quality comparisons. Statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.
The proportion of restorations with acceptable immediate quality was higher for the restorations that had been contoured using a diamond-coated non-stick contouring instrument compared to the restorations that had been contoured using a conventional steel instrument (p = 0.033). The number of pores and porosity were similar for restorations that had been contoured with different contouring instruments. However, the number of pores and porosity were lowest in the restorations made of Filtek Supreme XTE followed by Admira Fusion and Fuji II LC.
The use of diamond-like carbon-coated contouring instruments increased the proportion of acceptable composite restorations compared to conventional steel instruments.
Non-stick contouring instruments should be considered for wider use.
本研究旨在评估塑形器械对直接牙科修复体的孔隙率和即时质量的影响。
15颗具有30个二类洞和10个五类洞的人类磨牙由5名志愿牙医使用三种塑形器械（传统钢质器械、硅胶头器械和类金刚石碳涂层器械）和三种填充材料（Admira Fusion、Filtek Supreme XTE和Fuji II LC）进行修复。使用体视显微镜和微型计算机断层扫描对修复体的即时质量、孔隙率和孔隙数量进行评估。统计分析包括用于正态性检验的Shapiro-Wilk检验、用于正态数据的单因素方差分析及Holm-Sidak事后检验、用于非正态数据的Kruskal-Wallis方差分析及Dunn检验，以及用于修复体质量比较的Fisher精确检验。设定统计学显著性水平为p < 0.05。
与使用传统钢质器械塑形的修复体相比，使用类金刚石涂层不粘塑形器械塑形的修复体中即时质量可接受的比例更高（p = 0.033）。不同塑形器械塑形的修复体在孔隙数量和孔隙率方面相似。然而，由Filtek Supreme XTE制成的修复体中的孔隙数量和孔隙率最低，其次是Admira Fusion和Fuji II LC。
与传统钢质器械相比，使用类金刚石碳涂层塑形器械可提高可接受的复合树脂修复体的比例。
应考虑更广泛地使用不粘塑形器械。
