2种复合树脂充填体充填后牙短期临床效果评估

目的 评估复合树脂Filtek Z350XT及FiltekTMP60充填后牙Ⅰ、Ⅱ类洞的短期临床疗效。方法 行牙体充填治疗患者33例（82颗患牙）,依据牙体充填材料不同分为观察Ⅰ组（Filtek Z350XT,41颗患牙）和观察Ⅱ组（FiltekTMP60,41颗患牙）,于充填后7d及充填后2a分别拍摄咬合翼片,应用改良USPHS标准评价有无继发龋以及术后敏感、牙髓活力、色泽匹配、界面染色固位、表面质地、边缘适应性和解剖形态,并进行2组间比较。结果 充填后7d及充填后2a,2组9项参数评估均显示为A或B级;充填后2a,观察Ⅰ组充填体边缘适应性A级牙数为27颗,观察Ⅱ组A级牙数为35颗,2组比较差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.232,P=0.040）,其余8项参数比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论Filtek Z350XT和FiltekTMP60作为后牙牙体充填材料,2a内临床效果均满意,但FiltekTMP60较Filtek Z350XT在充填体边缘适应性方面更具优势。

Evaluation of short-term result of two packable posterior composites

Objective To evaluate the short-term therapeutic effect of Filtek Z350 XT and FiltekTM P60 on filling posterior teeth cavity of class Ⅰ and Ⅱ. Methods Eighty-two resin composite restorations were placed in 33 patients. The restorations were divided into group Ⅰ （Filtek Z350 XT） and group Ⅱ （FiltekTMp60）, with 41 teeth in eaeh group. Photographs were taken at baseline after 7 days and after two years. Restorations were evaluated by modified United States Public Health Service （USPHS） criteria for secondary cavities, postoperative sensitivity, pulp vitality, color matching, cavosurface marginal discoloration, retention, surface texture, marginal adaptation and anatomic form. The therapeutic effect was compared between two groups. Results Criterion A or B for 9 parameters was applicable to all 82 restorations after 7 days and after 2 years in two groups. The marginal adaptation was better in group Ⅱ than group Ⅰ （x2=4. 232, P：0. 040）, and there were no significant differences in the other 8 parameters between two groups after 2 years （P〉0.05）. Conclusion Both Filtek Z350 XT and FiltekTM P60 achieve satisfactory results for filling posterior teeth cavity in 2 years, and FiltekTMp60 is superior to Filtek Z350 XT in marginal adaptation.