American journal of dentistry · 2006
Clinical performance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with resin-based materials. 24-month results.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cehreli Zafer C, Cetinguc Aysegul, Cengiz Sevi Burcak, Altay A Nil
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical and radiographic success rates of pulpotomized (formocresol) primary molar teeth restored with a resin-based composite (TPH) or a polyacid-modified resin composite (Dyract AP) over a 2-year period.
METHODS: 100 composite and 100 compomer restorations were placed over pulpotomized teeth by two clinicians in 84 patients. Two other calibrated clinicians evaluated the restorations using the modified USPHS/Ryge criteria observing the following characteristics: marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, wear/anatomic form, enamel loss and caries. Mann Whitney U test, Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used for statistical analysis (P= 0.05).
RESULTS: At 24 months, 80 composite and 72 compomer restorations were available for evaluations. Except for baseline, compomer restorations showed significantly more marginal discoloration (P= 0.001) and marginal disintegrity (P= 0.001) than did the resin composite. Compomer restorations demonstrated a significant increase in minor enamel cracks along restoration margins over time (P= 0.001), but no chipping or loss of enamel was detected. Caries was observed only in 2.8% of compomer restorations and was restricted to restoration margins. 2% of composite and 17% of compomer restoration-treated teeth were extracted due to radiographic evidence of failure. Pathological root resorption patterns observed beneath failed compomer restorations were strongly suggestive of coronal microleakage.
METHODS: 100 composite and 100 compomer restorations were placed over pulpotomized teeth by two clinicians in 84 patients. Two other calibrated clinicians evaluated the restorations using the modified USPHS/Ryge criteria observing the following characteristics: marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, wear/anatomic form, enamel loss and caries. Mann Whitney U test, Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests were used for statistical analysis (P= 0.05).
RESULTS: At 24 months, 80 composite and 72 compomer restorations were available for evaluations. Except for baseline, compomer restorations showed significantly more marginal discoloration (P= 0.001) and marginal disintegrity (P= 0.001) than did the resin composite. Compomer restorations demonstrated a significant increase in minor enamel cracks along restoration margins over time (P= 0.001), but no chipping or loss of enamel was detected. Caries was observed only in 2.8% of compomer restorations and was restricted to restoration margins. 2% of composite and 17% of compomer restoration-treated teeth were extracted due to radiographic evidence of failure. Pathological root resorption patterns observed beneath failed compomer restorations were strongly suggestive of coronal microleakage.