[Comparative studies of two different systems for bonding composites with tissue of the tooth]

The objective of studies was the clinical evaluation concerning the influence of the bonding systems Syntac and Gluma exerted on the quality of compositive fillings in various types of defects in humans, in comparison to fillings, in which Compa Bond resin was used. The question was studied to answer whether there were any significant differences in respect of the assessed parameters between fillings by Syntac system and the fillings by Gluma system with preservation and marginal adaptation being taken into consideration. The studies were performed on 98 patients of both sexes, therein 56 women and 42 men. The assessment included 248 classified fillings, namely: 82 of Tetric material, 78 of Pekalux material and 88 of C-Fill MH and C-Molar materials. The fillings were estimated directly after placement, as well as after 6, 12, and 24 months, under artificial light by making use of dental mirror, a probe and an optic device (magnifying glass of fivefold magnification), on the basis of own card of investigations for compositive fillings. The dental pulp reaction to thermic simuli and faradic current was also taken into account. Fillings classified by grades 0 degree and 1 degree were defined as clinically acceptable, while 2 degrees and 3 degrees as clinically unacceptable. The statistical analysis was carried out by means of Chi 2 test. The number of Tetric and Pekalux materials fillings lost after 24 months of studies was substantially lower than the number of lost fillings made of C-Fill MH and C-Molar materials. The loss only concerned defects of non-carious origin, namely wedge shaped defects and pathological attrition of teeth (Tab. 1 and Tab. 2). The fillings by Syntac system are characterized by better marginal adaptation as compared with fillings, wherein the Gluma system was applied, however, no statistically significant differences between these groups were disclosed (Tab. 3). Significant differences were found to appear between the groups, of fillings, in which use was made of bonding systems Syntac and Gluma on the one hand, and the fillings set up by Compa Bond resin on the other. Assessing the colour, smoothness of surface and the anatomical shape of the fillings after 24 months no essential differences between the studied material groups were revealed. Secondary caries and post-procedural sensitivity involved only the cases, in which Compa Bond resin and C-Fill MH material were employed. After 24 months of studies the percentage of clinically acceptable fillings claimed to be as follows: Tetric 93.51%, Pekalux 91.55%, C-Fill MH and C-Molar 75.36%. Thus, it was disclosed that there were significantly more clinically acceptable fillings made of Tetric and Pekalux materials than of C-Fill MH and C-Molar materials. The Syntac and Gluma systems exerted significant influence on better preservation and marginal adaptation of fillings mainly in defects of non carious origin, in comparison to the fillings in which the conventional Compa Bond resin was being used. In cases, wherein Syntac and Gluma systems were applied, no post-procedural hypersensitivity was recorded. This ailment was evidenced in 4.5% of cases after implementing Compa Bond resin.