当前位置: X-MOL 学术Evid. Based Dent. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
10 year comparison of glass ionomer and composite resin restoration materials in class 1 and 2 cavities.
Evidence-Based Dentistry Pub Date : 2019-12-01 , DOI: 10.1038/s41432-019-0059-9
C Hutchison 1 , V Cave 1
Affiliation  

Data sources A prospective randomised, double-blinded controlled trial Study selection Those requiring routine dental care in Sihhiye, Turkey were eligible to participate. Eighty-seven participants were identified and assessed for eligibility by calibrated researchers who ensured that the inclusion and exclusion criteria were met. Fifty-nine participants were successfully recruited with an average age of 24 years (range 15-37).Restoration type were randomly allocated [glass ionomer (GI) or composite resin (CR)] using a table of random numbers with software 'Research Randomised Program' and four experimental groups were created.Two dentists with 5 years experience were calibrated by them placing ten trial restorations , which were not included in the study. One hundred and forty restorations were then placed adhering to a strict treatment protocol. Cavities which did not meet the specifications of the criteria were excluded. The study received ethical approval by the Human Ethics in Clinical Research Committee of the University.Data extraction and synthesis Restorations were assessed at baseline (1 week), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 years by blinded calibrated examiners with the aid of colour photographs using an objective criteria. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis was performed for one randomly selected restoration per group at each assessment. Data analysis adhered to the intention-to-treat CONSORT protocol. The restoration retention rates were calculated, and statistical analysis preformed using IBM SPSS version 22.0. The performance of the restorative materials over the study period were analysed with Cochran's Q test, according to USPHS criteria. Whilst the McNemar test was used to assess aspects of each material with baseline for each cavity type in addition to difference between cavity types. Marginal adaption, marginal discolouration and colour scores in each study group were compared with the p value set at 0.05.Results Eighty-seven patients with 203 lesions were included in the study, with 59 (140 lesions) eligible. Eleven patients were excluded for not meeting the inclusion/ exclusion criteria with 17 refusing to participate. Four randomly allocated groups were created at baseline, as combinations of cavity type and restorative material. 86.4% (n=51) of participants were evaluated after 10 years. The cumulative failure rate (CRF) was 3.17%.Marginal discolouration was observed in all groups at 10 years. With a significant difference observed between Class I and Class II cavities with GI restorations (p = 0.022). In addition, a significant change in colour match in GI restorations after 10 years(<0.005) was found.Over the ten-year period, no significant change was observed in terms of marginal adaption, anatomical form, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, surface texture, and retention for either restorative material (p >0.05) or with SEM inspections.Conclusions Both GI and CR are suitable and similar restorative materials for class 1 and class 2 cavities. However, differences can occur in colour change within the materials with glass ionomer restorations showing greater colour change from baseline over this period.

中文翻译:

比较1类和2类腔体中的玻璃离聚物和复合树脂修复材料的10年比较。

数据来源一项前瞻性随机,双盲对照试验研究选择在土耳其锡希耶需要常规牙科护理的患者有资格参加。经校准的研究人员确定了八十七名参与者,并评估了他们的资格,这些研究者确保符合纳入和排除标准。成功招募了59名参与者,平均年龄为24岁(范围15-37岁)。使用随机数表和“研究随机化”软件,随机分配了恢复类型[玻璃离子聚合物(GI)或复合树脂(CR)]。计划和四个实验组被创建。两名具有5年经验的牙医对其进行了校准,放置了十个试验修复体,这些均未包括在研究中。然后放置140个修复体,并遵守严格的治疗方案。不符合标准要求的型腔被排除在外。该研究获得了大学临床研究委员会人类伦理学的伦理学批准,数据提取和合成在基线(1周),1、2、3、4、5、6、8和10年通过盲校准进行了评估审查员借助客观标准的彩色照片。在每次评估时,对每组随机选择的修复体进行了扫描电子显微镜(SEM)分析。数据分析遵循意向性治疗CONSORT协议。计算了恢复保留率,并使用IBM SPSS 22.0版进行了统计分析。根据USPHS标准,使用Cochran's Q检验分析了研究期间修复材料的性能。同时使用McNemar测试来评估每种材料的各方面以及每种空腔类型的基线,以及空腔类型之间的差异。将每个研究组的边缘适应性,边缘变色和颜色评分与p值设置为0.05进行比较。结果研究纳入了87例203个病变的患者,其中59例(140个病变)为合格。11名患者因未达到纳入/排除标准而被排除在外,其中17名拒绝参与。在基线处创建了四个随机分配的组,作为腔体类型和修复材料的组合。10年后评估了86.4%(n = 51)的参与者。累积故障率(CRF)为3.17%。在10年时所有组均观察到边缘变色。具有GI修复体的I类腔和II类腔之间存在显着差异(p = 0.022)。此外,在10年后(<0.005)发现胃肠道修复体的颜色匹配发生了显着变化。在十年期间,在边缘适应性,解剖学形式,继发性龋齿,术后敏感性,表面方面未观察到显着变化。修复材料(p> 0.05)或通过SEM检查的质地和保留率。结论GI和CR都是适用于1类和2类腔体的修复材料,并且类似。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。具有GI修复体的I类腔和II类腔之间存在显着差异(p = 0.022)。此外,在10年后(<0.005)发现胃肠道修复体的颜色匹配发生了显着变化。在十年期间,在边缘适应性,解剖学形式,继发性龋齿,术后敏感性,表面方面未观察到显着变化。修复材料(p> 0.05)或通过SEM检查的质地和保留率。结论GI和CR都是适用于1类和2类腔体的修复材料,并且类似。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。具有GI修复体的I类腔和II类腔之间存在显着差异(p = 0.022)。此外,在10年后(<0.005)发现胃肠道修复体的颜色匹配发生了显着变化。在十年期间,在边缘适应性,解剖学形式,继发性龋齿,术后敏感性,表面方面未观察到显着变化。修复材料(p> 0.05)或通过SEM检查的质地和保留率。结论GI和CR都是适用于1类和2类腔体的修复材料,并且类似。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。此外,在10年后(<0.005)发现胃肠道修复体的颜色匹配发生了显着变化。在十年期间,在边缘适应性,解剖学形式,继发性龋齿,术后敏感性,表面方面未观察到显着变化。修复材料(p> 0.05)或通过SEM检查的质地和保留率。结论GI和CR都是适用于1类和2类腔体的修复材料,并且类似。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。此外,在10年后(<0.005)发现胃肠道修复体的颜色匹配发生了显着变化。在十年期间,在边缘适应性,解剖学形式,继发性龋齿,术后敏感性,表面方面未观察到显着变化。修复材料(p> 0.05)或通过SEM检查的质地和保留率。结论GI和CR都是适用于1类和2类腔体的修复材料,并且类似。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。修复材料(p> 0.05)或经SEM检查的术后敏感性,表面质地和保留率。结论GI和CR均适用于1级和2级腔体的修复材料。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。修复材料(p> 0.05)或经SEM检查的术后敏感性,表面质地和保留率。结论GI和CR均适用于1级和2级腔体的修复材料。但是,在这段时间内,玻璃离子交联聚合物修复材料的颜色变化可能会出现差异,与基线相比,颜色变化更大。
更新日期:2019-12-20
down
wechat
bug