使用块状填充物与传统复合材料进行二级修复术后敏感性随机对照试验

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
J Twigg, N Vaid, A Chavda, D Seymour, T P Hyde, P J Nixon
{"title":"使用块状填充物与传统复合材料进行二级修复术后敏感性随机对照试验","authors":"J Twigg, N Vaid, A Chavda, D Seymour, T P Hyde, P J Nixon","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2529Twigg09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bulk-fill composites may simplify posterior restorations, saving time and reducing technical complexity. Post-operative sensitivity is a risk of posterior composites; bulk-fill composites could mitigate this. This single centre, double-blinded, parallel groups randomised controlled trial compared postoperative sensitivity following restoration of class II carious lesions with bulk-fill or conventional, layered composite.</p><p><strong>Null hypothesis: </strong>there will be no difference in post-operative sensitivity between the two materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants requiring class II restoration of posterior teeth were randomised to bulk-fill (FU) (Coltene Fill-UpTM) or conventional, layered (BE) (Coltene Brilliant Everglow) composite. Allocation was concealed during cavity preparation. Only the operating dentist knew allocation. The outcome was 24 h post-operative sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>41 patients were randomised (20/group). Two patients from FU group were excluded from analysis (factors unrelated to intervention). There was no difference in postoperative sensitivity at 24 h nor any time point. Only participant age and baseline sensitivity scores significantly impacted post-operative sensitivity. One restoration debonded in FU group at 10 days, with no other adverse effects. No difference in time taken to place restorations was seen.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the study's limitations, post-operative sensitivity after class II posterior restorations was no different in bulk-fill restorations compared with conventional, incrementally cured composite.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Randomised Controlled Trial of Postoperative Sensitivity after Class II Restoration with Bulk-Fill vs Conventional Composites.\",\"authors\":\"J Twigg, N Vaid, A Chavda, D Seymour, T P Hyde, P J Nixon\",\"doi\":\"10.1922/EJPRD_2529Twigg09\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bulk-fill composites may simplify posterior restorations, saving time and reducing technical complexity. Post-operative sensitivity is a risk of posterior composites; bulk-fill composites could mitigate this. This single centre, double-blinded, parallel groups randomised controlled trial compared postoperative sensitivity following restoration of class II carious lesions with bulk-fill or conventional, layered composite.</p><p><strong>Null hypothesis: </strong>there will be no difference in post-operative sensitivity between the two materials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants requiring class II restoration of posterior teeth were randomised to bulk-fill (FU) (Coltene Fill-UpTM) or conventional, layered (BE) (Coltene Brilliant Everglow) composite. Allocation was concealed during cavity preparation. Only the operating dentist knew allocation. The outcome was 24 h post-operative sensitivity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>41 patients were randomised (20/group). Two patients from FU group were excluded from analysis (factors unrelated to intervention). There was no difference in postoperative sensitivity at 24 h nor any time point. Only participant age and baseline sensitivity scores significantly impacted post-operative sensitivity. One restoration debonded in FU group at 10 days, with no other adverse effects. No difference in time taken to place restorations was seen.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the study's limitations, post-operative sensitivity after class II posterior restorations was no different in bulk-fill restorations compared with conventional, incrementally cured composite.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45686,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2529Twigg09\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2529Twigg09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在量化简易义齿和传统非平衡义齿的固位情况方面,现有证据不足。本研究旨在量化、比较传统义齿和简化可摘非平衡全口义齿的上颌义齿固位情况和患者满意度:随机临床试验招募了44名符合明确标准的患者(22人)。为干预组制作了简易和常规非平衡全口义齿。用测力计评估上颌全口义齿的固位情况,用视觉模拟量表评估患者的满意度。上颌义齿的平均固位率和满意度分别记录在 0 个月、3 个月和 6 个月的间隔时间内。对数据进行了统计分析。(结果:测力计显示,传统义齿在 0、3 和 6 个月时的固位力平均值(±SD)为 121.73 ± 1.64 N 至 120.55 ± 1.57 N,简化义齿为 110.77 ± 1.45 N 至 109.59 ± 1.97 N。传统义齿的视觉模拟评分平均值(±SD)为 9.45±0.35 到 7.19±0.69,简化义齿的视觉模拟评分平均值(±SD)为 8.00±1.39 到 6.81±0.82。经重复方差分析、t 检验和事后 Bonferroni 检验,两种义齿之间存在显著统计学差异。(P⟨.05)结论:传统非平衡义齿的数值保持率和满意度均高于简化义齿。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Randomised Controlled Trial of Postoperative Sensitivity after Class II Restoration with Bulk-Fill vs Conventional Composites.

Introduction: Bulk-fill composites may simplify posterior restorations, saving time and reducing technical complexity. Post-operative sensitivity is a risk of posterior composites; bulk-fill composites could mitigate this. This single centre, double-blinded, parallel groups randomised controlled trial compared postoperative sensitivity following restoration of class II carious lesions with bulk-fill or conventional, layered composite.

Null hypothesis: there will be no difference in post-operative sensitivity between the two materials.

Methods: Participants requiring class II restoration of posterior teeth were randomised to bulk-fill (FU) (Coltene Fill-UpTM) or conventional, layered (BE) (Coltene Brilliant Everglow) composite. Allocation was concealed during cavity preparation. Only the operating dentist knew allocation. The outcome was 24 h post-operative sensitivity.

Results: 41 patients were randomised (20/group). Two patients from FU group were excluded from analysis (factors unrelated to intervention). There was no difference in postoperative sensitivity at 24 h nor any time point. Only participant age and baseline sensitivity scores significantly impacted post-operative sensitivity. One restoration debonded in FU group at 10 days, with no other adverse effects. No difference in time taken to place restorations was seen.

Conclusions: Within the study's limitations, post-operative sensitivity after class II posterior restorations was no different in bulk-fill restorations compared with conventional, incrementally cured composite.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信