固位形及粘结剂种类对楔状缺损树脂修复的影响

目的比较修复楔状缺损时制备固位形及不同粘结剂对临床疗效的影响。方法选择口内至少4颗楔状缺损的患者89例,609颗患牙,同一患者分别采用四种方法修复患牙（固位形＋两步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统Clearfil SE Bond;固位形＋一步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统iBond;无固位形＋两步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统Clearfil SE Bond;无固位形＋一步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统iBond）,采用自身对照的方法进行为期1年的临床观察。结果固位形组的成功率明显高于无固位形组,两者差异有统计学意义;无固位形组中两步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统ClearfilSEBond组的成功率高于一步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统iBond组,两者差异有统计学意义,但二者在边缘密闭性和术后敏感方面差异没有统计学意义。结论修复楔状缺损时,制备固位形有助于提高疗效;两步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统Clearfil SE Bond较一步法自酸蚀牙本质粘结系统iBond具有更高的粘结强度。

The effects of retentive form and different self-etching primer on restoring teeth with wedge shaped ditch using lightcured materials

Objective To observe the clinical effects of the retentive form and different self-etching primer in repairing wedge-shaped defect. Methods 89 subjects were selected for this 12-month clinical study by the split-mouth method. 609 teeth were randomly divided into four groups. Group A was prepared and bonded with Clearfil SE Bond ; Group B was prepared and bonded with iBond; Group C was bonded with Clearfil SE Bond and not prepared; Group D was bonded with iBond and not prepared. Results The successful rates of prepared group was higher than no prepared group and there was statistically significant difference between two groups （P〈0.01）. The successful rates of group C and group D were 85.1% and 72.7% and there was statistically significant difference between two groups （P〈0.05）. Conclusion The retention form helps to get better retention in restoring the wedge-shaped defect with light-cured composite resin. The bond strength of Clearfil SE Bond is higher than iBond. But there are no significant differences in main indexes except the drop rate when analyzed item by item with USPHS evaluation criterion successful rates were related with the abrasive degree of the restored teeth.