成髓不全症患者直接复合材料修复体的临床表现--前部修复体。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Neslihan Tekçe, Mustafa Demirci, Safa Tuncer, Gizem Güder, Elif Ilgi Sancak
{"title":"成髓不全症患者直接复合材料修复体的临床表现--前部修复体。","authors":"Neslihan Tekçe, Mustafa Demirci, Safa Tuncer, Gizem Güder, Elif Ilgi Sancak","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b2838105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using nanohybrid and nanofill composite materials in anterior teeth in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study included 15 patients with AI aged 14-30 years. During the study, the patients received anterior direct composite laminate veneer restorations using either a nanohybrid (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and Clearfil Universal Bond, Kuraray Noritake) or a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative and Single Bond Universal Adhesive, 3M Oral Care). The restorations were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and at 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year follow-up periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cumulative success rate of anterior restorations was 80.5% for nanohybrid and 92.5% for nanofill composite after 4 years. Eight restorations with nanohybrid and three restorations with nanofill resin composites failed. Ten restorations failed due to fracture; the fracture rate was 12.3%. Statistically significant differences were found between nanohybrid and nanofill composites regarding marginal discoloration and surface texture after 3 years. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were observed with respect to color match after 4 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of a nanohybrid or nanofill composite for anterior direct restorations in patients with AI was observed to be satisfactory, based on the rate of ideal and clinically acceptable restorations. The primary reason for restoration failure was fracture. The failure rate of nanohybrid composite restorations was higher than with nanofill composite restorations with respect to survival and marginal adaptation criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":" ","pages":"77-86"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta - Anterior Restorations.\",\"authors\":\"Neslihan Tekçe, Mustafa Demirci, Safa Tuncer, Gizem Güder, Elif Ilgi Sancak\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b2838105\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using nanohybrid and nanofill composite materials in anterior teeth in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The study included 15 patients with AI aged 14-30 years. During the study, the patients received anterior direct composite laminate veneer restorations using either a nanohybrid (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and Clearfil Universal Bond, Kuraray Noritake) or a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative and Single Bond Universal Adhesive, 3M Oral Care). The restorations were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and at 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year follow-up periods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cumulative success rate of anterior restorations was 80.5% for nanohybrid and 92.5% for nanofill composite after 4 years. Eight restorations with nanohybrid and three restorations with nanofill resin composites failed. Ten restorations failed due to fracture; the fracture rate was 12.3%. Statistically significant differences were found between nanohybrid and nanofill composites regarding marginal discoloration and surface texture after 3 years. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were observed with respect to color match after 4 years.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of a nanohybrid or nanofill composite for anterior direct restorations in patients with AI was observed to be satisfactory, based on the rate of ideal and clinically acceptable restorations. The primary reason for restoration failure was fracture. The failure rate of nanohybrid composite restorations was higher than with nanofill composite restorations with respect to survival and marginal adaptation criteria.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"77-86\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2838105\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2838105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估在成髓不全症(AI)患者的前牙中使用纳米杂化和纳米填充复合材料进行直接复合材料修复的临床表现:研究对象包括 15 名年龄在 14-30 岁之间的成髓不全症患者。研究期间,患者使用纳米混合材料(Clearfil Majesty ES-2 和 Clearfil Universal Bond,Kuraray Noritake)或纳米填充树脂复合材料(Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative 和 Single Bond Universal Adhesive,3M Oral Care)进行前牙直接复合材料贴面修复。在基线和 1、2、3 和 4 年的随访期间,根据修改后的 USPHS 标准对修复体进行了评估:结果:4 年后,前牙修复的累积成功率,纳米混合材料为 80.5%,纳米填充复合材料为 92.5%。8颗纳米混合树脂修复体和3颗纳米树脂复合材料修复体失败。有 10 个修复体因断裂而失败;断裂率为 12.3%。3 年后,纳米混合树脂和纳米填充树脂复合材料在边缘变色和表面纹理方面的差异具有统计学意义。此外,4 年后在颜色匹配方面也发现了显著的统计学差异:结论:从理想修复体和临床可接受修复体的比率来看,在人工干预患者的前牙直接修复体中使用纳米混合或纳米填充复合材料的效果令人满意。修复体失败的主要原因是断裂。就存活率和边缘适应性标准而言,纳米混合复合材料修复体的失败率高于纳米填充复合材料修复体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Performance of Direct Composite Restorations in Patients with Amelogenesis Imperfecta - Anterior Restorations.

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of direct composite restorations using nanohybrid and nanofill composite materials in anterior teeth in patients with amelogenesis imperfecta (AI).

Materials and methods: The study included 15 patients with AI aged 14-30 years. During the study, the patients received anterior direct composite laminate veneer restorations using either a nanohybrid (Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and Clearfil Universal Bond, Kuraray Noritake) or a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate Universal Restorative and Single Bond Universal Adhesive, 3M Oral Care). The restorations were evaluated according to the modified USPHS criteria at baseline and at 1-, 2-, 3- and 4-year follow-up periods.

Results: The cumulative success rate of anterior restorations was 80.5% for nanohybrid and 92.5% for nanofill composite after 4 years. Eight restorations with nanohybrid and three restorations with nanofill resin composites failed. Ten restorations failed due to fracture; the fracture rate was 12.3%. Statistically significant differences were found between nanohybrid and nanofill composites regarding marginal discoloration and surface texture after 3 years. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were observed with respect to color match after 4 years.

Conclusion: The use of a nanohybrid or nanofill composite for anterior direct restorations in patients with AI was observed to be satisfactory, based on the rate of ideal and clinically acceptable restorations. The primary reason for restoration failure was fracture. The failure rate of nanohybrid composite restorations was higher than with nanofill composite restorations with respect to survival and marginal adaptation criteria.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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