Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
Clinical evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin-based composites for posterior restorations in permanent teeth: results at 12 months.
复制标题
用于恒牙后牙修复的可填充复合材料和传统混合树脂基复合材料的临床评估：12 个月的结果。
DOI：
10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0103
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
R. Smales
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Yip;B. K. Poon;F. Chu;Eric C M Poon;Fiona Y C Kong;R. Smales
背景
可包装的树脂基复合材料和简化的树脂粘结系统在市场上提供了许多优于传统的后混合复合材料和全蚀刻粘结系统的优点。作者进行了一项研究，以评价与简化粘合系统一起使用的可包装和传统混合树脂基复合材料的初始临床性能。
方法
在65名成人患者的恒牙中，共放置了57个I类和45个II类修复体。使用树脂粘合剂（Non-Rinse Conditioner和Prime & Bond NT，均由Dentsply DeTrey GmbH制造），用可包装树脂基复合材料（SureFil，Dentsply DeTrey GmbH，Konstanz，德国）或传统混合树脂基复合材料（SpectrumTPH，Dentsply DeTrey GmbH）修复龋损。作者使用美国公共卫生服务-Ryge修改的标准（其中Alfa是最高评级）并通过使用颜色对比度和模具石复制品来评估这些替代品。
结果
3次SureFill置换在基线评价前失败。在12个月时评价的78例SpectrumTPH置换中没有失败。对于这两种树脂基复合材料，Alfa对边缘变色、解剖形式、表面纹理和表面染色的评级为90%或更高。较低百分比的牙龈炎被评为阿尔法的颜色匹配，边缘完整性和牙龈健康。报告了4例SureFill置换和1例SpectrumTPH置换的偶尔轻度术后敏感性。较大的SureFils咬合面的平均咬合面磨损率为38微米，较小的SpectrumTPH咬合面的平均咬合面磨损率为25微米。
结论
两种修复材料的12个月临床性能令人满意，并且评价的每个参数均无显著差异。
临床意义
一个可包装的和传统的混合树脂基复合材料放置在后恒牙的简化粘接系统显示出令人满意的和相似的结果后12个月。
BACKGROUND
Packable resin-based composites and simplified resin bonding systems are marketed to offer many advantages over conventional posterior hybrid composites and total-etch bonding systems. The authors conducted a study to evaluate the initial clinical performances of a packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite used with a simplified bonding system.
METHODS
A total of 57 Class I and 45 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of 65 adult patients. The carious lesions were restored with either packable resin-based composite (SureFil, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany) or conventional hybrid resin-based composite (SpectrumTPH, Dentsply DeTrey GmbH), using a resin adhesive (Non-Rinse Conditioner and Prime & Bond NT, both manufactured by Dentsply DeTrey GmbH). The authors evaluated the restorations using U.S. Public Health Service-Ryge modified criteria (in which Alfa is the highest rating) and by using color transparencies and die stone replicas.
RESULTS
Three SureFil restorations failed before their baseline evaluation. There were no failures among the 78 SpectrumTPH restorations evaluated at 12 months. For both resin-based composites, Alfa ratings were 90 percent or higher for marginal discoloration, anatomical form, surface texture and surface staining. Lower percentages of restorations were rated Alfa for color match, marginal integrity and gingival health. Occasional mild postoperative sensitivity was reported for four SureFil restorations and one SpectrumTPH restoration. The mean occlusal wear rate was 38 micrometers for the larger SureFil restorations and 25 microm for the smaller SpectrumTPH restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
The 12-month clinical performances of the two restorative materials were satisfactory and not significantly different for each of the parameters evaluated.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
A packable and a conventional hybrid resin-based composite placed with a simplified bonding system in posterior permanent teeth showed satisfactory and similar results after 12 months.