The. longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth - Findings from the new England children's amalgam trial
The. longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth - Findings from the new England children's amalgam trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0264
复制
发表时间：
2007-06-01
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Hayes, Catherine
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Soncini, Jennifer Ann;Maserejian, Nancy Nairi;Hayes, Catherine
背景。比较汞合金和树脂基复合材料/复合材料再吸收物寿命的随机临床试验提供的信息有限。作者在新英格兰儿童汞合金试验的5年随访期间比较了这些类型的后牙修复的替代率。作者将6 - 10岁有两个或两个以上后牙合龋齿病变的儿童随机分为两组，分别接受银汞合金（n = 267）或组合（乳牙）/复合（恒牙）（n = 267）修复，并每半年随访一次。他们使用随机效应生存分析比较了所有后表面修复体的寿命。原牙修复体的平均+/-标准差随访时间为2.8 +/- 1.4年，恒牙修复体的平均+/- 1.9年。在乳牙中，由于龋齿复发，复合牙的替换率为5.8%，汞合金的替换率为4.0% (P = 0.10)， 3.0%对0.5% （P = 0.002）。在恒牙中，复合材料的替换率为14.9%，而汞合金的替换率为10.8% (P = 0.45)；复合材料的修复率为2.8%，而汞合金的修复率为0.4% （P = 0.02）。虽然寿命的总体差异没有统计学意义，但由于复发性龋齿，复合材料的更换频率明显更高，复合材料修复体需要的修复次数是汞合金修复体的7倍。
Background. Limited information is available from randomized clinical trials comparing the longevity of amalgam and resin-based compomer/composite resorations. The authors compared replacement rates of these types of restorations in posterior teeth during the five-year follow-up of the New England Children's Amalgam Trial.Methods. The authors randomized children aged 6 to 10 years who had two or more posterior occlusal carious lesions into groups that received amalgam (n = 267) or composer (primary teeth)/composite (permanent teeth) (n = 267) restorations and followed them up semiannually. They compared the longevity of restorations placed on all posterior surfaces using random effects survival analysis.Results. The average +/- standard deviation follow-up was 2.8 +/- 1.4 years for primary toothe restorations and 3.4 +/- 1.9 years for permanent tooth restorations. In primary teeth, the replacement rate was 5.8 percent of compomers versus 4.0 percent of amalgams (P = .10), with 3.0 percent versus 0.5 percent (P = .002), respectively, due to recurrent caries. In permanent teeth, the replacement rate was 14.9 percent of composites versus 10.8 percent of amalgams (P = .45), and the repair rate was 2.8 percent of composites versus 0.4 percent of amalgams (P = .02).Conclusion. Although the overall difference in longevity was not statistically significant, compomer was replaced significantly mopre frequently owing to recurrent caries, and composite restorations required seven times as many repairs as did amalgam restorations.