2种不同树脂材料进行楔状缺损充填的临床疗效比较

目的:对使用3M FiltekTMZ350和可乐丽菲露AP-XTM2种不同光固化复合树脂充填楔状缺损的疗效进行比较分析。方法:200颗患牙分为实验组和对照组,每组各100颗,分别将3M FiltekTMZ350树脂(配套使用3M AdperPrompt自蚀黏合剂)和可乐丽菲露AP-XTM树脂(配套使用可乐丽菲露SE Bond树脂黏合剂)按照各自产品说明书进行窝洞处理、黏结、充填、固化和磨光,经过1/2a、1a、2a观察后,采用USPH&Ryge评估标准评价2组疗效,采用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行χ2检验。结果:2种树脂的继发龋、边缘密合性、边缘着色、表面粗糙度、色泽匹配、牙龈健康状况在1/2a和1a后的差异均无显著性。2a后,试验组和对照组相比,继发龋、磨耗、边缘密合度、边缘着色和色泽匹配性的差异均有显著性,实验组优于对照组,其他各项无显著差异。结论:比较用于充填Ⅳ类洞的2种树脂材料,3M FiltekTMZ350树脂具有更多的优越性,值得临床推广使用。

Clinical effect of two different composite resins in filling Class IV cavity

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical effect of Clearfil AP-XTM and 3M Filte kTM Z350 in filling Class Ⅳcavity.METHODS: 200 teeth were divided into two groups after class-Ⅳ cavity preparation according to composite resin filling technique.These teeth were then filled by Clearfil AP-XTM(with Clearfil SE Bond) and 3M FiltekTM Z350(with 3M Adper Prompt Bond) step by step according to the instruction manual.The clinical effect was evaluated and compared after 3 months,6 months,1 year and 2 years respectively.The data were collected and analyzed with USPH&Ryge evaluation standard and SPSS13.0 software package.RESULTS: The result indicated that there was no significant difference between the two group at half a year and 1 year.At 2-year there was significant difference in secondary caries occurrence,attrition,marginal discrepancy,marginal color and color matching between them,3M group was better than clearfil group,but there was no significant difference in other indexes between them.CONCLUSIONS: When filling Class Ⅳ cavity,compared to Clearfil AP-XTM,3M FiltekTM Z350 has more advantages,and worthy of wider clinical application.