Adölesanlarda, farklı kompozit rezin materyallerin klinik performansı

Son yıllarda, arka grup daimi dişlerin kompozit rezin restoratif materyallerle tedavisi, estetik restoratif bir konsept olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, 1 yıllık takibin sonunda bir mikrohibrit kompozit rezin ve bir kondanse edilebilir kompozit rezin materyalin, adölesan hastaların daimi büyük azı dişlerindeki klinik performanslarının değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışmada bir mikrohibrit Filtek Z250, 3MESPE, USA ve bir kondanse edilebilir Filtek P60, 3M-ESPE, USA kompozit rezin materyallerin klinik performansları, “Modifiye Ryge Kriterleri” doğrultusunda değerlendirilerek, 13-17 yaşları arasında bulunan adelösan hastaların daimi büyük azı dişlerine uygulanan 71 adet Sınıf I restorasyonda belirlendi. Restorasyonlar 3., 6. aylarda ve 1 yılın sonunda değerlendirildi. 1 yılın sonundaki kontrol seanslarında, ikişer adet mikrohibrit kompozit rezin restorasyonlarda; renk uyumu ve kenar uyumu kriterleri için restorasyonlar “Beta” olarak skorlandı. Ayrıca kondanse edilebilir kompozit rezin restorasyonlarda sekonder çürük için bir, postoperatif hassasiyet için ise yine bir restorasyon “Beta” skoru gösterdi. Her iki restoratif materyal için, 3., 6. ve 12. aylardaki diğer tüm skorlar “Alfa” olarak belirlendi. 1 yıl sonundaki klinik ön takipte, Filtek Z250 mikrohibrit ve P60 kondanse edilebilir kompozit rezin materyallerin büyük azı dişlerindeki klinik performansları kabul edilebilir bulundu. Bu materyallerin uzun süreli klinik etkinliklerinin belirlenmesi için ise, uzun dönem takip çalışmaları gerekmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Klinik çalışma, Kondanse edilebilir kompozitler, Mikrohibrit kompozitler

Clinical performance of different composite resin materials in adolescents

The treatment of posterior permanent teeth with composite resin restorative materials is accepted as an esthetic restorative concept. The aim of this study was to evaluate the one-year followup of clinical performances of a microhybrid composite resin and a condansable composite resin materials in permanent molars in adolescent patients. In the study, clinical performances of a microhybrid Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE, USA and a condansable Filtek P60, 3M ESPE, USA composite resin materials in 71 Class-I restorations were determined in permanent molar teeth according to “Modified Ryge Criteria” in 13-17 years-old adolescent patients. Restorations were assesed in 3th month, 6th month and at the end of 1st year. At the recall after first year, two microhybrid restorations were scored as “Beta” for color match and two microhybrid restorations were scored as “Beta” for marginal adaptation criteria. Also, there was just one “Beta” score for secondary caries and one “Beta” score was found for postoperative sensitivity in condansable composite resin restorations. All other scores were determined as “Alfa” for both composite restorative materials at 3rd, 2nd and 12th months. Clinical performances of Filtek Z250 and P60 composites were found acceptable after 1-year pre-follow-up. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine the effectiveness of these composites

Keywords:

Clinical trail, Condansable composites, Microhybrid composites.,

PDF

___

Dayangaç B. Kompozit Rezin Resto- rasyonlar. Ankara: Güneş Kitabevi Ltd. ùti: 2000.
American Dental Association Council on Dental Materials. Specification No. 27 for direct filling materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1977; 94: 1191.
Willems G, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Vanherle G. Composite resins in the 21st cen- tury. Quintessence Int 1993; 24: 641-58.
Bayne S, Heymann H, Swift E. Update on dental composite restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1994; 125: 687-701.
Lee IB, Son HH, Um CM. Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 298-307.
Jones CT, Chan DC, Pashley D, Goes MF, Nelson SK. Microtensile bond strength testing and failure analysis of hybrid and flowable composites. J Adhes Dent 2006; 8: 13-20.
Dunn JR. Direct composites in a con- temporary restorative practice. Compendium Contin Educ Dent 1998; 19: 271-81.
Jackson RD, Morgan M. The new pos- terior resins and a simplified placement tech- nique. J Am Dent Assoc 2000; 131: 375-83.
Leinfelder KF. A conservative ap- proach to placing posterior composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1996; 127: 743- 8.
Peutzfeld A. Resin composites in dentistry: the monomer systems. Eur J Oral Sci 1997; 105: 97-116.
Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent As- soc 1973; 87: 369-77.
Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9: 215-32.
Arenholt-Bindslev D. Environmental aspects of dental filling materials. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 713-20.
Leinfelder KF, Bayne SC, Swift EJ Jr. Packable composites: overview and techni- cal considerations. J Esthet Dent 1999; 11: 234-49.
Lutz F, Phillips RW. A classification and evaluation of composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50: 480-8.
Anusavice KJ. Restorative Resins. In: Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials, 10th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company, 1996; p.273-99.
Bayne SC, Thompson JY. Biomateri- als. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ, Eds. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry, vol 5th ed. Missouri: Mosby Inc, 2006; p.137-242.
Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC, Wilder AD, Heymann HO, Lisk M, Foster E. 3-year clinical study of a failed condensable posterior composite. J Dent Res 1993; 72: 380.
Suzuki S. Does the wear resistance of packable composite equal that of dental amal- gam? J Esthet Restor Dent 2004; 16: 355-65.
Powers JM, Wataha JC. Dental Mate- rials: Properties and Manipulation. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc: 2008.
Garcia AH, Lozano MAM, Vila JC, Escribano AB, Galve PF. Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006; 11: 215- 20.
Walls AW, McCabe JF, Murray JJ. The polymerization contraction of visible light activated composite resins. J Dent 1988; 16: 177-81.
Sakaguchi RL, Douglas WH, Peters MC. Curing light performance and polymeriza- tion of composite restorative materials. J Dent 1992; 20: 183-8.
Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin ba- sed composites: a comparison. J Am Dent As- soc 2000; 131: 1610-5.
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Influence of UEDMA BisGMA and TEGDMA on selec- ted mechanical properties of experimental re- sin composites. Dent Mater 1998; 14: 51-6.
Ersoy M, Civelek A, L'Hotelier E, Say EC, Soyman M. Physical properties of dif- ferent composites. Dent Mater J 2004; 23: 278- 83.
de Andrade AK, Duarte RM, Medei- ros e Silva FD, Batista AU, Lima KC, Pontual ML et al. 30-Month randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a nanohybrid composite. J Dent 2011; 39: 8-15.
Pazinatto FB, Gionordoli Neto R, Wang L, Mondelli J, Mondelli RF, Navarro MF. 56-month clinical performance of Class I and II resin composite restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2012; 20: 323-8.
De Souza FB, Guimarães RP, Silva CH. A clinical evaluation of packable and mic- rohybrid resin composite restorations: one-year report. Quintessence Int 2005; 36: 41-8.
Kiremitci A, Alpaslan T, Gurgan S. Six-year clinical evaluation of packable com- posite restorations. Oper Dent 2009; 34: 11-7.
Trushkowsky RD. Composite Resin: Fundamentals and Direct Technique Restorati- ons. In: Aschheim KW, Dale BG, Eds. Esthetic Dentistry: A Clinical Approach to Techniques and Materials, vol 2nd ed. USA: Mosby Inc, 2001; p. 69-94.
McCabe JF, Walls A. Applied dental materials. 8th ed. Madlen MA-USA: Blackwell Publishing Co: 1998.
Bayne SC, Taylor DF, Heymann HO. Protection hypothesis for composite wear. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 305-9.
Ferracane JL, Antonio RC, Mat- sumoto H. Variables affecting the fracture to- ughness of dental composites. J Dent Res 1987; 66: 1140-5.
Condon JR, Ferracane JL. In vitro wear of composite with varied cure, filler le- vel, and filler treatment. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 1405-11.