Douglas W H, Fundingsland J W
Minnesota Dental Research Center for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis 55455.
J Dent. 1992 Dec;20(6):365-9. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(92)90028-b.
Three generically different fluoride-releasing materials that function as a liner or base were assessed for their microleakage performance on enamel and dentine. Group 1 (light-cured liner/base) showed much more leakage, but less bulk absorption of tracer, than Group 2 (traditional glass ionomer) or Group 3 (light-cured glass ionomer). The response of the three materials to tracer penetration was consistent with what is known about their chemistry. The Group 2 and 3 materials are probably the materials of choice at the caries-vulnerable margins, which are not easily visible for inspection.
对三种作为垫底材料或基底材料的具有不同作用机制的释氟材料，评估其在牙釉质和牙本质上的微渗漏性能。第1组（光固化垫底材料/基底材料）相比第2组（传统玻璃离子体）或第3组（光固化玻璃离子体）表现出更多的渗漏，但示踪剂的总体吸收较少。这三种材料对示踪剂渗透的反应与其化学性质相符。第2组和第3组材料可能是龋易感边缘部位的首选材料，这些部位不易进行可视检查。
