Mjör I A, Jokstad A
NIOM, Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway.
J Dent. 1993 Dec;21(6):338-43. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(93)90006-c.
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of an amalgam, a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment material and a resin-based composite material used in small Class II cavities in permanent teeth. All restorations were inserted under rubber dam. They were examined yearly for 3 years. One clinician continued the study up to 5 years. The clinical examination focused on two criteria: clinically acceptable and failure. In addition, impressions were taken of the prepared cavities immediately before restoration and at each clinical examination using an elastomeric material. The study comprised 274 Class II restorations (88 amalgams, 95 cerments and 91 resin composites) placed in 142 adolescent patients. One hundred and sixty-seven restorations were in molar and 107 in premolar teeth. Patient dropout after 5 years resulted in the loss of 161 restorations, evenly distributed for restorative material and type of tooth involved. Four amalgam restorations, 22 glass ionomer cerment and nine resin composite restorations failed. The glass ionomer cerment and amalgam restorations failed primarily due to bulk fractures, while the resin composite restorations failed due to secondary caries and bulk fractures.
本研究的目的是比较用于恒牙小Ⅱ类洞的银汞合金、玻璃聚烯烃酸酯（离子体）粘结剂材料和树脂基复合材料的临床性能。所有修复体均在橡皮障下进行充填。对其进行了为期3年的年度检查。由一名临床医生将该研究持续进行至5年。临床检查着重于两个标准：临床可接受性和失败情况。此外，在修复前及每次临床检查时，使用弹性材料对预备洞进行印模制取。该研究纳入了142例青少年患者的274个Ⅱ类修复体（88个银汞合金修复体、95个粘结剂修复体和91个树脂复合材料修复体）。其中167个修复体位于磨牙，107个位于前磨牙。5年后患者失访导致161个修复体缺失，缺失修复体在修复材料和患牙类型方面分布均匀。4个银汞合金修复体、22个玻璃离子体粘结剂修复体和9个树脂复合材料修复体失败。玻璃离子体粘结剂修复体和银汞合金修复体主要因大块折裂而失败，而树脂复合材料修复体因继发龋和大块折裂而失败。
