Evaluación del desempeño clínico de una resina nanohíbrida versus resina microhíbrida en restauraciones posteriores
Cargando...
Archivos
Fecha
2013
Autores
Profesor/a Guía
Facultad/escuela
Idioma
es
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Andrés Bello
Nombre de Curso
Licencia CC
Licencia CC
Resumen
Debido al constante desarrollo de nuevas resinas compuestas, es bueno conocer el comportamiento clínico de estas para así poder elegir el material que entregue las mejores propiedades para restaurar una pieza dentaria. Es por esto que este estudio tiene como objetivo evaluar y comparar en un período de 4 semanas, el desempeño clínico de una resina nanohíbrida versus una resina microhíbrida, utilizadas en restauraciones posteriores, y determinar cuál de estos materiales presenta mejores resultados. Metodología: Este estudio corresponde a un estudio clínico comparativo observacional de tipo transversal. La muestra es no probabilística por conveniencia obtenida de 12 pacientes atendidos en la clínica de internado de la facultad de Odontología de la Universidad Andrés Bello del año 2013. Un total de 50 lesiones cariosas clases I y II fueron restauradas; 25 con una resina nanohíbrida (Polofil Nht) y 25 con una resina microhíbrida (Miris2), usando el mismo sistema adhesivo (Single Bond), según las instrucciones de cada fabricante. Las restauraciones fueron clínicamente evaluadas inmediatamente finalizadas, 1 semana después y 4 semanas después, utilizando el criterio USPHS o criterio de Ryge modificado por dos evaluadores previamente calibrados. El análisis estadístico se llevó a cabo utilizando la prueba de Chi-cuadrado (P <0.05). Resultados: En un periodo de 4 semanas no se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas al comparar ambos materiales (p>0,05). No obstante, sí se presentaron diferencias clínicas entre las dos resinas utilizadas en este estudio. Conclusiones: No hay diferencias estadísticamente significativas respecto al desempeño clínico entre una resina microhíbrida (Miris2) y una resina nanohíbrida (Polofil Nht) en un período de 4 semanas. Sin embargo, la resina
nanohíbrida (polofil Nht) mostró mejores resultados clínicos que la resina microhíbrida
(Miris2).
Due to constant development of new resin composites, it is necessary understand their clinical behavior in arder to choose the material that delivers the best properties to restare a tooth. That is why the aim of this study is to evaluate and compare in a period of four weeks, the clinical performance of a nanohybrid resin versus a microhybrid resin, used in posterior restorations, and determine which of these materials presents better results. Method: This is a cross-sectional comparative observational clinic study. The sample is not random by convenience, obtained from 12 patients treated in clinical internship of Dentistry faculty at Universidad Andrés Bello in 2013. A total of 50 caries cavities, class I and 11, were restored; 25 with a nanohybrid resin (Polofil nht) and 25 with a microhybrid resin (Miris 2), using the same adhesive system (Single Bond), following instructions of each manufacturer. Restorations were clinically evaluated immediately completed, 1 week after and 4 weeks after, using USPHS criteria or Ryge's modified criteria performed by two evaluators previously calibrated. Statistical analysis was carried out using Pearson Chi-square test (P < O.OS). Results: Over a period of four weeks there were no statistically significant differences when comparing both materials (p> O.OS). Nevertheless, clinical differences were observed between the two resins used in this study. Conclusions: There are no statistically significant differences in clinical performance between a micro-hybrid resin (Miris2) and a nanohybrid resin (Polofilnht) in a period of 4 weeks. However, nanohybrid resin (polofilNht) showed better clinical results than microhybrid resin (Miris2).
Due to constant development of new resin composites, it is necessary understand their clinical behavior in arder to choose the material that delivers the best properties to restare a tooth. That is why the aim of this study is to evaluate and compare in a period of four weeks, the clinical performance of a nanohybrid resin versus a microhybrid resin, used in posterior restorations, and determine which of these materials presents better results. Method: This is a cross-sectional comparative observational clinic study. The sample is not random by convenience, obtained from 12 patients treated in clinical internship of Dentistry faculty at Universidad Andrés Bello in 2013. A total of 50 caries cavities, class I and 11, were restored; 25 with a nanohybrid resin (Polofil nht) and 25 with a microhybrid resin (Miris 2), using the same adhesive system (Single Bond), following instructions of each manufacturer. Restorations were clinically evaluated immediately completed, 1 week after and 4 weeks after, using USPHS criteria or Ryge's modified criteria performed by two evaluators previously calibrated. Statistical analysis was carried out using Pearson Chi-square test (P < O.OS). Results: Over a period of four weeks there were no statistically significant differences when comparing both materials (p> O.OS). Nevertheless, clinical differences were observed between the two resins used in this study. Conclusions: There are no statistically significant differences in clinical performance between a micro-hybrid resin (Miris2) and a nanohybrid resin (Polofilnht) in a period of 4 weeks. However, nanohybrid resin (polofilNht) showed better clinical results than microhybrid resin (Miris2).
Notas
Tesis (Cirujano Dentista, Especialización en Internado Clínico)
Palabras clave
Restauración Dental Permanente, Resinas compuestas, Comportamiento clínico, Materiales Dentales, Mejora Contínua de Procesos, Chile