Objective

The objective of this RCT was to compare the 10-year clinical performance of QuiXfil with that of Tetric Ceram in posterior single- or multi-surface cavities.

Methods

46 QuiXfil (Xeno III) and 50 Tetric Ceram (Syntac classic) composite restorations were placed in 14 stress bearing class I and 82 class II cavities in first or second molars. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after up to 10 years by using modified US Public Health Service criteria. At the last recall period, 26 QuiXfil and 30 Tetric Ceram restorations in 11 stress bearing class I and 45 class II cavities, were assessed.

Results

Ten failed restorations were observed during the follow-up period, four Tetric Ceram restorations failed due to secondary caries (2), tooth fracture (1) and bulk fracture combined with secondary caries (1) whereas six QuiXfil restorations failed due to secondary caries (1), tooth fracture (2), secondary caries combined with restoration fracture (1), restoration fracture (1) and postoperative sensitivity (1). Fisher’s exact test yielded no significant difference between both materials (p = 0.487).

Significance

Both materials, bulk fill QuiXfil restorations and Tetric Ceram restorations, showed highly clinical effectiveness during the 10-year follow-up.

中文翻译：

---

I型和II型磨牙腔中大块填充复合材料QuiXfil的临床评估：RCT的10年结果

客观的

该RCT的目的是比较QuiXfil和Tetric Ceram在后单或多表面腔中的10年临床表现。

方法

将46个QuiXfil（Xeno III）和50个Tetric Ceram（Syntac classic）复合修复体分别放置在第一或第二磨牙的14个I级和82级II型承压腔中。通过使用修改后的美国公共卫生服务标准在基线和长达10年后进行临床评估。在上次召回期间，评估了11个承受I级应力的空腔和45个II级空腔的26个QuiXfil和30个Tetric Ceram修复体。

结果

在随访期间观察到十个失败的修复体，四次Tetric Ceram修复体由于继发性龋齿（2），牙齿骨折（1）和整体骨折合并继发性龋齿（1）而失败，而六个QuiXfil修复体由于继发性龋齿而失败（ 1），牙齿骨折（2），继发龋合并修复骨折（1），修复骨折（1）和术后敏感性（1）。Fisher的精确测试在两种材料之间均无显着差异（p = 0.487）。

意义

两种材料，即填充的QuiXfil修复体和Tetric Ceram修复体，在10年的随访中均显示出很高的临床有效性。