Macpherson L C, Smith B G
Department of Conservative Dental Surgery, UMDS, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
J Dent. 1994 Apr;22(2):118-20. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(94)90015-9.
One of the commonest methods of replacing a missing cusp, a pinned amalgam restoration, was compared with three adhesive restorative techniques, two of them with additional pin retention. All the teeth were subjected to occlusal/lateral forces and loaded to fracture in an Instron testing machine. A layered restoration of glass ionomer cement replacing the dentine, and resin composite replacing the enamel, without pins required more force to fracture than any of the other techniques including the pinned amalgam restoration. A composite restoration with dentine bonding agent and additional pin retention was second best and significantly better than the pinned amalgam restoration. A cermet restoration with additional pin retention required slightly less force to fracture than pin-retained amalgam restorations, but not significantly so.
将一种最常见的修复缺失牙尖的方法——钉固汞合金修复体，与三种粘结修复技术进行了比较，其中两种还采用了附加的钉固位。所有牙齿均承受咬合/侧向力，并在英斯特朗试验机上加载直至折断。一种用玻璃离子粘固剂替代牙本质、树脂复合材料替代牙釉质的分层修复体，在不使用钉的情况下，比包括钉固汞合金修复体在内的任何其他技术都需要更大的力才能折断。使用牙本质粘结剂并附加钉固位的复合树脂修复体次之，且明显优于钉固汞合金修复体。采用附加钉固位的金属陶瓷修复体折断所需的力略小于钉固汞合金修复体，但差异不显著。
