光固化复合树脂与玻璃离子在充填楔状缺损治疗中的应用效果对比

Comparison of the therapeutic effects of light-cured composite resin and glass ionomer in the restoration of wedge-shaped defects

摘要:

目的 比较光固化复合树脂与玻璃离子在充填楔状缺损治疗中的应用效果。方法 选取2021年1月—2025年6月在安徽医科大学附属口腔医院接受修复治疗的118例楔状缺损患者为研究对象，按照随机数字表法将所有患者分为对照组与观察组，每组59例。对照组接受玻璃离子充填治疗，观察组接受光固化复合树脂充填治疗。治疗6个月后评估两组患者的微渗漏情况，比较治疗前和治疗6个月后的龈沟液炎症因子水平及牙周状况，通过口腔健康影响程度量表（OHIP-14）评估牙齿功能，并记录并发症情况。结果 观察组微渗漏等级低于对照组（P 0.05）。观察组治疗后白细胞介素-6（IL-6）、IL-8、IL-1β及基质金属蛋白酶-8（MMP-8）水平均低于对照组（P 0.05）。同组内治疗后IL-6、IL-8、IL-1β及MMP-8水平均低于治疗前（P 0.05）。观察组治疗后牙周袋深度（PD）、牙龈指数（GI）及龈沟出血指数（SBI）均低于对照组（P 0.05）。同组内治疗后PD、GI及SBI均低于治疗前（P 0.05）。观察组治疗后疼痛与不适、功能限制、能力受限、身心缺陷评分均低于对照组（P 0.05）。同组内治疗后疼痛与不适、功能限制、能力受限、身心缺陷评分均低于治疗前（P 0.05）。对照组出现2例填充体变色、3例继发牙周炎、2例牙本质过敏、3例修复体折裂；观察组出现1例填充体变色、1例继发牙周炎、2例牙本质过敏、1例修复体折裂。两组并发症总发生率比较，差异无统计学意义（P 0.05）。结论 在充填楔状缺损治疗中，光固化复合树脂在控制微渗漏、改善充填体边缘的牙周临床指标及提升患者主观口腔健康体验方面均优于玻璃离子，且两者在临床应用中的整体安全性均良好。对于美学、功能及长期封闭性要求较高的楔状缺损患者，临床可优先考虑选用光固化复合树脂。

Abstract:

Objective To compare the therapeutic effects of light-cured composite resin and glass ionomer in the restoration of wedge-shaped defects.Methods A total of 118 patients with wedge-shaped defects who received treatment in our hospital from January 2021 to June 2025 were selected as the research subjects. All patients were divided into the control group and the observation group by random number table method, with 59 cases in each group. The control group was treated with glass ionomer restoration, while the observation group was treated with light-cured composite resin restoration. Six months after treatment, the microleakage of the two groups was evaluated, the levels of inflammatory factors in gingival crevicular fluid and periodontal status before treatment and 6 months after treatment were compared, the 14-item Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) was used to assess dental function, and the occurrence of complications was recorded.Results the observation group having lower microleakage grades than the control group. The post-treatment levels of IL-6, IL-8, IL-1β, and MMP-8 in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P 0.05). Within the same group, the post-treatment levels of IL-6, IL-8, IL-1β, and MMP-8 were lower than the pre-treatment levels (P 0.05). The post-treatment PD, GI, and SBI in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P 0.05). Within the same group, the post-treatment PD, GI, and SBI were lower than the pre-treatment levels (P 0.05). The post-treatment scores for pain and discomfort, functional limitation, psychological disability, and physical disability in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (P 0.05). Within the same group, the post-treatment scores for pain and discomfort, functional limitation, psychological disability, and physical disability were lower than the pre-treatment scores (P 0.05). In the control group, there were 2 cases of filling discoloration, 3 cases of secondary periodontitis, 2 cases of dentin hypersensitivity, and 3 cases of restoration fracture. In the observation group, there were 1 case of filling discoloration, 1 case of secondary periodontitis, 2 cases of dentin hypersensitivity, and 1 case of restoration fracture. Comparison of the total incidence of complications between the two groups showed no statistically significant difference (P 0.05).Conclusion In the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions, light-cured composite resin demonstrates superiority over glass ionomer in terms of reducing microleakage, alleviating local periodontal inflammatory response, improving periodontal clinical indicators, and enhancing patients' subjective oral health experience, with comparable safety profiles between the two materials. Therefore, for cases where aesthetic, functional, and long-term sealing performance are of high priority, light-cured composite resin can be preferentially considered.