van Dijken J W, Hörstedt P, Waern R
Institute of Oral Biology, Dental School Umeå, Umeå University, Sweden.
Am J Dent. 1998 Aug;11(4):165-72.
(1) To evaluate the interfacial adaptation to dentin and enamel of Class II composite resin restorations placed in vivo with the directed shrinkage technique, a combination of a self-curing (Bisfil 2B) and a light-curing composite resin (AElitefil); (2) To compare this technique with a horizontal incremental filling technique, where the gingival layer of the light-curing composite resin was cured with a transparent light-tip; (3) To evaluate the effect of a hydrophilic bonding system (All-Bond 2) on the marginal adaptation of both application techniques.
In each of 34 premolars, scheduled to be extracted for orthodontic reasons, a mesial and a distal cavity was restored with composite resin filling material using the directed shrinkage technique (Bisfil 2B/AElitefil) and a horizontal incremental filling technique (AElitefil). In six groups, a hydrophilic dentin bonding system (All-Bond 2) was applied. As control, an enamel bonding agent (Gluma 4) was used in one of the directed shrinkage and in one of the horizontal incremental filling groups. For conditioning of the cavities a 10% phosphoric acid gel was used in six groups and a 32% acid gel in the other two groups. The teeth were extracted after 1 month, sectioned and replicas of the sections were made. Quality of the interfacial adaptation was studied with a scanning electron microscope.
On the pairwise comparisons between the two application groups, no significant differences were found between the directed shrinkage technique and the horizontal incremental filling technique. The groups using the hydrophilic bonding system showed a significant better adaptation, with gap-free attachment in 77%-87% of the length of the dentin margins investigated. No significant differences for adaptation to enamel were seen between the investigated groups. The adhesive failures were found mostly between the hybrid layer and the composite resin, while the dentin was still sealed. No significant difference in interfacial quality was seen between the cavities using the 10% or the 32% phosphoric acid conditioning. A relative high frequency of enamel fractures, parallel to the interfaces, was found in the 10% phosphoric acid-conditioned cavities, especially in the cervical enamel interfaces.
(1)评估采用定向收缩技术(一种自固化复合树脂(Bisfil 2B)和一种光固化复合树脂(AElitefil)联合使用)在体内放置的II类复合树脂修复体与牙本质和牙釉质的界面适应性;(2)将该技术与水平分层充填技术进行比较,在水平分层充填技术中,光固化复合树脂的龈方层用透明光导头固化;(3)评估亲水性粘结系统(全粘结剂2)对两种应用技术边缘适应性的影响。
在34颗因正畸原因计划拔除的前磨牙中,每颗牙的近中窝和远中窝分别采用定向收缩技术(Bisfil 2B/AElitefil)和水平分层充填技术(AElitefil)用复合树脂充填材料进行修复。在六个组中,应用亲水性牙本质粘结系统(全粘结剂2)。作为对照,在定向收缩组和水平分层充填组中的一组使用牙釉质粘结剂(Gluma 4)。对于窝洞的预处理,六组使用10%磷酸凝胶,另外两组使用32%酸凝胶。1个月后拔除牙齿,进行切片并制作切片的复制品。用扫描电子显微镜研究界面适应性质量。
在两个应用组的两两比较中,定向收缩技术和水平分层充填技术之间未发现显著差异。使用亲水性粘结系统的组显示出显著更好的适应性,在所研究的牙本质边缘长度的77%-87%中实现了无间隙附着。在所研究的组之间,对牙釉质的适应性未发现显著差异。粘结失败大多发生在混合层与复合树脂之间,而牙本质仍被封闭。使用10%或32%磷酸预处理的窝洞之间在界面质量上未发现显著差异。在10%磷酸预处理的窝洞中,尤其是在颈部牙釉质界面,发现平行于界面的牙釉质骨折频率相对较高。