A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings
A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006
复制
发表时间：
2006-08-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Demarco, Flavio Fernando
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
da Rosa Rodolpho, Paulo Antonio;Cenci, Maximiliano Sergio;Demarco, Flavio Fernando
目的：由于越来越多的后牙复合修复体被常规放置，因此进行这项研究是为了评估这些在全科诊所放置的修复体的长期生存率。方法：选择并邀请来自私人牙科诊所的患者参加，这些患者在1987年至1988年间接受了使用P-50（3 M）或Herculite XR（Kerr）树脂复合材料进行的后牙修复。修复体置于橡胶坝隔离下。牙本质壁用玻璃离子粘固剂覆盖，并且根据制造商的说明放置复合物。38例患者同意参与并在评价前签署了知情同意书。两名校准的操作员在评价中独立工作，使用修改后的USPHS标准。使用Kaplan-Meier生存curve.Results：在282个牙列中记录了98个失败，提供了34.8%失败的粗略估计。材料的成活率无显著性差异（p = 0.92），但在前磨牙与下磨牙、洞型（p <0.001）和洞型大小（p <0.001）之间有显著性差异（p < 0.001）。对于评价的标准，大多数病例的评分为A或B。结论：经过17年的评估，后牙树脂复合材料的临床性能是可以接受的。然而，在磨牙、II类和大牙列中，树脂复合牙列的失效概率较高。(c)2005爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
Objective: Since an increasing number of composite restorations in posterior teeth are placed as a routine, this study was conducted to evaluate long-term survival of these restorations placed in general practice.Methods: Patients from a private dental office that received restorations in posterior teeth between 1987 and 1988 with P-50 (3M) or Herculite XR (Kerr) resin composites were selected and invited to participate. Restorations were placed under rubber dam isolation. Dentine walls were covered with glass ionomer cement, and composites were placed according to manufacturer's instructions. Thirty-eight patients agreed to participate and signed an informed consent prior to the evaluation. Two calibrated operators worked independently in the evaluation, using modified USPHS criteria. Survival of restorations or subsets of restorations grouped on the basis of variables (material, tooth, cavity type and size) was determined using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.Results: Ninety-eight failures were recorded among the 282 restorations providing a crude estimate of 34.8% failures. The survival rate was not significant for material (p = 0.92) but was significant between tooth bower premolars and lower molars, p < 0.0001), cavity type (p < 0.001) and size (p < 0.001). The majority of restorations exhibited A or B scores for the evaluated criteria. The main failure cause was fracture of both composites.Conclusions: The clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations evaluated was acceptable after 17-year evaluation. However, the probability of failure of resin composite restorations in molars, Class II, and large restorations is higher. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.