Ashraf Hamsa, El Tannir Adel, El Zohairy Ahmed, Kamal Dina
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Sep 23;25(1):1419. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06903-5.
The cementation of indirect restorations is a critical step influencing their long-term clinical success. While dual-cure resin cements are widely used, injectable resin composites have emerged as promising alternatives, offering improved handling, high filler content, and esthetic stability. However, their clinical performance as luting agents for indirect restorations remains insufficiently explored. This trial assessed the clinical performance of indirect hybrid ceramic onlay restorations cemented with injectable resin composite versus dual-cure resin cement over 18 months.
A total of 28 participants were randomly assigned to two groups (n = 14) based on the cementation protocol. The intervention group received onlays cemented with injectable resin composite (BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X F03, Shofu Dental Corporation), while the control group received dual-cure resin cement (BeautiCem SA, Shofu Dental Corporation). Standardized procedures were followed for cavity preparation, immediate dentin sealing, cavity optimization, impression-taking, onlay fabrication (SHOFU Block HC, Shofu Dental Corporation), and cementation. Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months using the modified USPHS criteria. Data were statistically analyzed with significance set at P ≤ 0.05. Intergroup comparisons were assessed with Chi-squared test, while intragroup comparisons were assessed with Cochran's Q test. Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test were used to evaluate survival rates.
Inter- and intragroup comparisons revealed no significant differences between the two groups for most outcomes (P > 0.05). However, at 18 months, dual-cure resin cement exhibited significantly higher marginal discoloration than injectable resin composite (P = 0.038). Within the dual-cure resin cement group, a significant decline in alpha scores for marginal discoloration was observed from baseline to 18 months (P = 0.007). While no restorations failed (Charlie score), Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test demonstrated a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.029).
After 18 months, injectable resin composite demonstrated acceptable and comparable clinical performance to dual-cure resin cement, with the added benefit of reduced marginal discoloration.
Injectable resin composites offer a viable alternative to dual-cure resin cements for luting indirect restorations with enhanced esthetic outcomes.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , (NCT05954156), 20-07-2023.
间接修复体的粘结是影响其长期临床成功的关键步骤。虽然双固化树脂粘结剂被广泛使用，但可注射树脂复合材料已成为有前景的替代品，具有更好的操作性、高填料含量和美学稳定性。然而，它们作为间接修复体粘结剂的临床性能仍未得到充分研究。本试验评估了用可注射树脂复合材料与双固化树脂粘结剂粘结的间接混合陶瓷高嵌体修复体在18个月内的临床性能。
根据粘结方案，将28名参与者随机分为两组（n = 14）。干预组接受用可注射树脂复合材料（BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X F03，松风齿科公司）粘结的高嵌体，而对照组接受双固化树脂粘结剂（BeautiCem SA，松风齿科公司）。遵循标准化程序进行窝洞预备、即时牙本质封闭、窝洞优化、取模、高嵌体制备（松风Block HC，松风齿科公司）和粘结。使用改良的美国公共卫生服务标准在基线、6个月、12个月和18个月时对修复体进行评估。数据采用统计学分析，显著性设定为P≤0.05。组间比较采用卡方检验，组内比较采用 Cochr an Q检验。采用Kaplan-Meier分析和对数秩检验评估生存率。
组间和组内比较显示，两组在大多数结果上无显著差异（P>0.05）。然而，在18个月时，双固化树脂粘结剂的边缘变色明显高于可注射树脂复合材料（P = 0.038）。在双固化树脂粘结剂组中，从基线到18个月，边缘变色的α评分显著下降（P = 0.007）。虽然没有修复体失败（查理评分），但Kaplan-Meier生存分析和对数秩检验显示两组之间存在统计学显著差异（P = 0.029）。
18个月后，可注射树脂复合材料表现出与双固化树脂粘结剂相当且可接受的临床性能，且具有减少边缘变色的额外益处。
可注射树脂复合材料为粘结间接修复体提供了一种可行的替代双固化树脂粘结剂的方法，具有更好的美学效果。
