Yazici A Rüya, Ozgünaltay Gül, Dayangaç Berrin
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey.
Oper Dent. 2003 Nov-Dec;28(6):773-8.
This study evaluated the microleakage of Class V cavities restored with three different types of flowable resin restorative material and compared the effects of using their respective manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 non-carious human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to three equal groups of 16. The first eight teeth in each group were restored with one of the flowable restorative materials (Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow, Admira Flow) using the manufacturer's recommended dentin adhesive (Single Bond, Prime & Bond NT, Admira Bond), and the remaining eight molars were restored using a different brand of dentin adhesive (Gluma Comfort Bond). The samples were thermocycled 200 times (5 degrees C-55 degrees C) with a one-minute dwell time. They were then immersed in a 2% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. There was no statistically significant difference at the occlusal margins for either restoration used with its respective dentin adhesive. At the gingival margins, there was a significant difference among all groups. Flowable ormocer (Admira Flow/Admira Bond) displayed the least leakage at the gingival margins. When these flowable restoratives were used with a different brand of dentin adhesive, statistically significant differences were observed both on enamel and dentin. None of the restoratives tested fully prevented leakage at the gingival margins. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among the restorative materials used with respect to the manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand except for Admira Flow restorative at the gingival margins. The gingival margins had significantly more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.05) except in the Admira Flow group, where microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margins was almost equal.
本研究评估了用三种不同类型的可流动树脂修复材料修复Ⅴ类洞的微渗漏情况，并比较了使用各自制造商的牙本质粘结剂或不同品牌粘结剂的效果。在48颗无龋人类磨牙的颊面和舌面制备了Ⅴ类洞，其咬合边缘位于釉质，牙龈边缘位于牙本质。将牙齿随机分为三组，每组16颗。每组的前八颗牙齿用一种可流动修复材料（Filtek Flow、Dyract Flow、Admira Flow）并使用制造商推荐的牙本质粘结剂（Single Bond、Prime & Bond NT、Admira Bond）进行修复，其余八颗磨牙则使用不同品牌的牙本质粘结剂（Gluma Comfort Bond）进行修复。将样本在5℃-55℃下进行200次热循环，每次停留1分钟。然后将它们浸入2%的碱性品红溶液中24小时，切片并通过体视显微镜进行分析。使用各自牙本质粘结剂修复时，在咬合边缘没有统计学上的显著差异。在牙龈边缘，所有组之间存在显著差异。可流动的有机陶瓷（Admira Flow/Admira Bond）在牙龈边缘的渗漏最少。当这些可流动修复材料与不同品牌的牙本质粘结剂一起使用时，在釉质和牙本质上均观察到统计学上的显著差异。所测试的修复材料均未完全防止牙龈边缘的渗漏。除Admira Flow修复材料在牙龈边缘外，在使用制造商的牙本质粘结剂或不同品牌的情况下，修复材料之间的微渗漏没有显著差异。除Admira Flow组外，牙龈边缘的微渗漏明显多于咬合边缘（p<0.05），在Admira Flow组中，咬合边缘和牙龈边缘的微渗漏几乎相等。
