Smales R J, Gerke D C
Department of Dentistry, University of Adelaide.
Aust Dent J. 1994 Dec;39(6):344-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1994.tb03103.x.
The clinical performance of GS-80 and Lojic+amalgam alloys was compared with that of Dispersalloy, Valiant PhD, Lojic N and Permite C amalgam alloys over periods of up to three years. The 1114 restorations were placed by one dentist in 23 canine, 418 premolar and 673 molar permanent teeth of 301 adult patients treated in a private practice. Direct and indirect clinical assessments were made of the restorations for failures (there were no true failures), and for the deterioration of four clinical factors. All restorations were rated as being either 'good' (A) or 'adequate' (B) for each of the four factors which, apart from surface texture, showed some slight but statistically-significant clinical deterioration with time. Lojic+ and Permite C showed clinically slight but statistically more surface roughness and marginal fracture, while Lojic+ and GS-80 showed more surface tarnishing, than did the other alloys. There were no statistically significant differences between the alloys for marginal staining.
在长达三年的时间里，将GS - 80和Lojic +汞合金与Dispersalloy、Valiant PhD、Lojic N和Permite C汞合金的临床性能进行了比较。这1114颗修复体由一名牙医放置在301名成年患者的23颗犬齿、418颗前磨牙和673颗磨牙恒牙上，这些患者均在一家私人诊所接受治疗。对修复体的失败情况（无真正失败案例）以及四个临床因素的恶化情况进行了直接和间接的临床评估。对于四个因素中的每一个，所有修复体都被评为“良好”（A）或“足够”（B），除了表面质地外，其他因素均显示出随着时间推移有一些轻微但具有统计学意义的临床恶化。与其他合金相比，Lojic +和Permite C在临床上表现出轻微但在统计学上更明显的表面粗糙度和边缘骨折，而Lojic +和GS - 80表现出更多的表面变色。合金之间在边缘染色方面没有统计学上的显著差异。
