Estudio comparativo del desempeño clínico de restauraciones posteriores de amalgama versus resina compuesta
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
lntroduccion: La enseñanza y práctica odontológica tradicionalmente se han
enfocado al tratamiento ideal y menor atención ha sido prestada para el
diagnóstico y tratamiento de restauraciones que han fracasado. Estudios previos
han demostrado que el reemplazo de restauraciones corresponde entre 50 al 78%
de la actividad del odontólogo de práctica general. Este hecho sugiere cierto
fracaso para la odontología.
Objetivo: Estudiar comparativamente el desempeño clínico de restauraciones
posteriores de amalgama versus resina compuesta, en un grupo de personas de
20 a 50 años de edad del establecimiento Consultorio No 1 Dr. Ramón Corbalán
Melgarejo.
Tipo de estudio: Estudio comparativo, observacional transversal, retrospectivo.
Muestra: Se seleccionaron 211 piezas posteriores restauradas, correspondientes
a 50 pacientes, las restauraciones eran de Resinas Compuestas y Amalgamas
clases 1 y 11. Los pacientes pertenecían al rango etario entre los 20 y 50 años. En
cada restauración se evaluó Forma Anatómica, Rugosidad Superficial, Adaptación
Marginal y Caries Recidivante.
Método de recolección de datos: examen clínico realizado con visión directa y
sondaje. Análisis estadístico utilizado: se utilizaron las pruebas estadísticas del chicuadrado
y el test exacto de Fisher.
Resultado: se observaron resultados estadísticamente significativos (p<0,05) para
el Test exacto de Fisher en los parámetros examinados de Forma Anatómica y
Rugosidad Superficial.
Discusión: Los resultados que se pueden observar nos muestran que dos de los
cuatro parámetros estudiados, tienen resultados estadísticamente significativos
(p<0,05) los cuales son forma anatómica y rugosidad superficial, ambas
favoreciendo a la Resina Compuesta, es decir, en el parámetro forma anatómica,
la restauración se puede clasificar como A, 8 o C, y la Resina Compuesta
presenta una diferencia estadística significativa respecto a la Amalgama en la
cantidad de Resinas compuestas clasificadas como A.
Esto se traduce en que es más frecuente encontrar una Resina Compuesta con
excelente forma anatómica que una amalgama con excelente forma anatómica.
Conclusión: Se logra una forma anatómica de la restauración excelente, más
frecuentemente en las Resinas Compuestas que en la Amalgama. Se logra una
rugosidad superficial de la restauración excelente, más frecuentemente en las
Resinas Compuestas que en la Amalgama. Aunque no existen diferencias
estadísticamente significativas respecto a las caries recidivantes entre Resinas
Compuestas y Amalgamas, se muestra una mayor proporción de recidiva de
caries en la restauraciones de Amalgama que en las de Resina Compuesta.
lntroduction: lnstruction and dental practices have traditionally been focused on ideal treatment, and less attention has been paid to diagnosis and treatment of unsuccessful restorations. Previous studies have demonstrated that restoration replacement corresponds from 50 to 78% of the dentist's general practice activities. This fact suggests a certain failure to dentistry. Objective: Comparative study of clinical performance of posterior amalgam restorations versus composite resin, in a group of people from 20 to 50 years old who attended at Healthcare N°1 Dr. Ramon Corbalan Melgarejo. Study Type: Comparative, obseNational cross- sectional, retrospective study. Sample: 211 posterior teeth restored were selected, corresponding to 50 patients, restorations consisted of composite resins and amalgam classes 1 and 11. On each restoration, anatomical shape, surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and caries recurrence were evaluated. Data collection method: Clinical examination attainment with direct visualization and probing. Statistical analysis: Chi-square statistical test and Fisher's exact test were used. Results: Statistically significant outcome results were observed (P<0,05) for Fisher's exact test on the examined parameters of anatomical shape and surface roughness. Discussion: The results showed that two of the tour parameters studied are statistically significant (P<0,05) which corresponds to anatomical shape and surface roughness, both in favor of composite resin, i.e anatomical shape parameter, restoration can be classified as A, B or C, and composite resin presents a statistically significant difference in relation to amalgam on the amount of composite resins classified as A. this means that is more frequent to find a composite resin with excellent anatomical shape than an amalgam with excellent anatomical shape. Conclusion: An anatomical shape with the excellent restoration was achieved mostly often in composite resin than amalgam. Surface roughness with the excellent restoration was attaining more frequently on composite resin than amalgam restorations. Although there are no statistically significant differences in caries recurrence between composite resin and amalgams, it shows a higher proportion of caries recurrence on amalgams than composite resin.
lntroduction: lnstruction and dental practices have traditionally been focused on ideal treatment, and less attention has been paid to diagnosis and treatment of unsuccessful restorations. Previous studies have demonstrated that restoration replacement corresponds from 50 to 78% of the dentist's general practice activities. This fact suggests a certain failure to dentistry. Objective: Comparative study of clinical performance of posterior amalgam restorations versus composite resin, in a group of people from 20 to 50 years old who attended at Healthcare N°1 Dr. Ramon Corbalan Melgarejo. Study Type: Comparative, obseNational cross- sectional, retrospective study. Sample: 211 posterior teeth restored were selected, corresponding to 50 patients, restorations consisted of composite resins and amalgam classes 1 and 11. On each restoration, anatomical shape, surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and caries recurrence were evaluated. Data collection method: Clinical examination attainment with direct visualization and probing. Statistical analysis: Chi-square statistical test and Fisher's exact test were used. Results: Statistically significant outcome results were observed (P<0,05) for Fisher's exact test on the examined parameters of anatomical shape and surface roughness. Discussion: The results showed that two of the tour parameters studied are statistically significant (P<0,05) which corresponds to anatomical shape and surface roughness, both in favor of composite resin, i.e anatomical shape parameter, restoration can be classified as A, B or C, and composite resin presents a statistically significant difference in relation to amalgam on the amount of composite resins classified as A. this means that is more frequent to find a composite resin with excellent anatomical shape than an amalgam with excellent anatomical shape. Conclusion: An anatomical shape with the excellent restoration was achieved mostly often in composite resin than amalgam. Surface roughness with the excellent restoration was attaining more frequently on composite resin than amalgam restorations. Although there are no statistically significant differences in caries recurrence between composite resin and amalgams, it shows a higher proportion of caries recurrence on amalgams than composite resin.
Notas
Tesis (Cirujano Dentista)
Palabras clave
Estética, Materiales Dentales, Chile, Región Metropolitana, Comuna de Santiago, Restauración Dental