Outhwaite W C, Twiggs S W, Fairhurst C W, King G E
J Dent Res. 1982 Feb;61(2):400-2. doi: 10.1177/00220345820610020701.
The specimens of composite resin retained by pins exhibited significantly lower cycle life than did all other groups. At low loads, the pins and slots are comparable (when composite resin is used), but there is a dramatic decrease in the life of restorations retained with pins as the load is increased. At the 30-micrometer end point, the composite restorations retained with pins failed at a mean of 250 cycles, whereas the composite restorations retained with a slot failed at 250,000 cycles - a 1000X increase in cycle life. In general, cycle life of composite resin retained with a slot is comparable to or greater than that of amalgam retained with a slot or pins. Whether the life difference between the pin- and slot- retained amalgam restoration is clinically significant is not known; however, the baseline for a clinical study of the two types of retention for definitive amalgam restorations has been completed and will be reported in the future.
用桩固位的复合树脂标本的循环寿命明显低于所有其他组。在低负荷下，桩和槽是可比的（当使用复合树脂时），但随着负荷增加，用桩固位的修复体寿命会急剧下降。在30微米的终点，用桩固位的复合树脂修复体平均在250次循环时失败，而用槽固位的复合树脂修复体在250,000次循环时失败——循环寿命增加了1000倍。一般来说，用槽固位的复合树脂的循环寿命与用槽或桩固位的汞合金相当或更长。桩固位和槽固位的汞合金修复体之间的寿命差异在临床上是否显著尚不清楚；然而，针对确定性汞合金修复体的两种固位类型的临床研究基线已经完成，未来将会报告。
