SonicFill声波树脂与3M Filtek Z350纳米复合树脂在Ⅱ类洞牙体缺损慢性根尖周炎患者充填修复治疗中的效果比较

Comparison of the effect of SonicFill sonic resin and 3M Filtek Z350 nanocomposite resin in fillingand restorative treatment of chronic apical periodontitis patients with dental defects of class Ⅱ cavity

目的对比SonicFill声波树脂与3M Filtek Z350纳米复合树脂充填修复治疗Ⅱ类洞牙体缺损慢性根尖周炎患者的效果。方法64例Ⅱ类洞牙体缺损慢性根尖周炎患者,按随机数字表法分为SonicFill组和3M Filtek Z350组,每组32例。3M Filtek Z350组以3M Filtek Z350纳米复合树脂进行分层充填;SonicFill组以SonicFill声波树脂充填。比较两组患者治疗效果,治疗前、治疗3个月的龈沟液炎性因子水平,治疗前以及治疗1、3、6周的视觉模拟评分法(VAS)评分。结果SonicFill组治疗总有效率96.88%与3M Filtek Z350组的87.50%比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后,SonicFill组白细胞介素-6(IL-6)、肿瘤坏死因子-α(TNF-α)、C反应蛋白(CRP)水平分别为(5.24±1.25)、(2.08±0.57)、(1.23±0.24)μg/L,均低于3M Filtek Z350组的(7.57±2.03)、(3.19±0.78)、(2.09±0.35)μg/L,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗1、3、6周,SonicFill组的VAS评分分别为(2.12±0.69)、(1.06±0.35)、(0.43±0.24)分,均低于3M Filtek Z350组的(2.73±0.85)、(1.78±0.42)、(0.62±0.37)分,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论与3M Filtek Z350纳米复合树脂充填修复治疗Ⅱ类洞牙体缺损慢性根尖周炎患者相比,SonicFill声波树脂充填修复治疗效果更为明显,于缓解炎性反应、减轻疼痛感方面更具优势。

Objective To compare the effect of SonicFill sonic resin and 3M Filtek Z350 nanocomposite resin in filling and restorative treatment of chronic apical periodontitis patients with dental defects of classⅡcavity.Methods A total of 64 cases of chronic apical periodontitis patients with dental defects of classⅡcavity were divided into SonicFill group and 3M Filtek Z350 group according to random numerical table,with 32 cases in each group.The 3M Filtek Z350 group was filled with 3M Filtek Z350 nanocomposite resin,and the SonicFill group was filled with SonicFill sonic resin.The therapeutic effect,level of inflammatory factors in gingival crevicular fluid before treatment and after 3 months of treatment,and the visual analogue scale(VAS)score before treatment and after 1,3,and 6 weeks of treatment were compared between the two groups.Results The total effective rate 96.88%of SonicFill group had no statistically significant difference compared with 87.50%of 3M Filtek Z350 group(P>0.05).After treatment,the interleukin-6(IL-6),tumor necrosis factor-α(TNF-α),C-reactive protein(CRP)of SonicFill group were(5.24±1.25),(2.08±0.57)and(1.23±0.24)μg/L,which were all lower than(7.57±2.03),(3.19±0.78)and(2.09±0.35)μg/L of 3M Filtek Z350 group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).After 1,3 and 6 weeks of treatment,the VAS score of SonicFill group were(2.12±0.69),(1.06±0.35)and(0.43±0.24)points,which were lower than(2.73±0.85),(1.78±0.42)and(0.62±0.37)points of 3M Filtek Z350 group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Compared with 3M Filtek Z350 nanocomposite resin filling and repairing for patients with chronic periapical periodontitis who have dental defects in classⅡcavities,SonicFill sonic resin filling and repairing is more effective,and it has advantages in alleviating inflammatory reaction and reducing pain.