摘要
目的对比评估后牙复合树脂CLEARFIL AP-X/SE BOND和RENEW/ALL-BOND在充填修复成人后牙Ⅰ、Ⅱ类洞的临床疗效。方法选择对称牙位均有同型龋坏的病例,共99例218个患牙(Ⅰ类洞182个,Ⅱ类洞36个)进行复合树脂充填修复。采用USPHS & Ryge标准,分别于治疗后4年对修复体的保存率以及边缘密合性、继发龋、表面粗糙度、颜色匹配状况、边缘着色、磨耗、牙龈健康状况进行疗效评估。结果患者复查率为99%,CLEARFIL AP-X的4年保存率达到99.1%,RENEW为96.3%;2种材料的边缘密合性和边缘着色,表面粗糙度,磨耗情况有统计学意义(P<0.05),CLEARFIL AP-X的边缘封闭质量,磨耗情况优于RENEW,但边缘易着色,表面较粗糙。继发龋和色泽匹配的USPHS & Ryge检查结果显示,两种材料比较差异无统计学意义。结论在4年的临床观测期内,后牙复合树脂CLEARFIL AP-X/SE BOND和RE-NEW/ALL-BOND显示了良好的生物相容性和疗效,具有良好的临床适用性。
Objective To evaluate the clinical effect of two posterior resin composite（CLEARFIL AP-X/SE BOND and RENEW/ ALL-BOND）in filling for posterior teeth. Methods A total of 218 teeth（182 Class Ⅰ ,36 Class Ⅱ ）in 99 patients with same type carious teeth of symmetrical location were restored by two materials, respectively. According to modified USPHS＆Ryge evaluation criterion, marginal adaptation, .secondary caries, surface roughness, color match, marginal discoloration, wear, gingival condition and sensitivity were assessed after restoration for 4 years. Chi-Square and Fisher＇ s Exact test were used for statistical analysis（ alpha = 0.05）. Results At year 4,214 teeth of 98 patients were evaluated. A total of 106 teeth（99.1% ）restored with CLEARFIL and 103 teeth（96.3 % ）with RENEW were found to be intact. Marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface roughness and wear had significant difference between 2 materials. However, there was no significant difference in color match and secondary caries between Class Ⅰand Class Ⅱ , between maxillary and mandibular, between molar and premolar. Conclusion The results demonstrate that CLEARFIL AP-X/SE BOND and RENEW/ALL-BOND have a satisfactory clinical performance of restoration in 4-year clinical service.
出处
《山西医科大学学报》
CAS
2008年第8期750-753,共4页
Journal of Shanxi Medical University
基金
陕西省科技计划-社发攻关基金资助项目[2006k11-G1(2)]
关键词
后牙复合树脂
牙体缺损
临床评价
posterior resin composite
dentinal body defect
clinical evaluation
