Aysegül Olmez, Nurhan Oztas, Haluk Bodur, Dilek Tüfekçioglu
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey.
Oper Dent. 2005 Mar-Apr;30(2):164-9.
This study compared the degree of marginal leakage of a compomer in Class V cavities of human primary molars prepared by a conventional dental bur and air abrasion with or without acid etching. Fifty-six non-carious extracted primary molars were randomly divided into four groups (n=14) to be prepared by four techniques: Group-1: Bur followed by acid etching: Class V cavity preparations were placed on the buccal surfaces of each tooth using a high-speed handpiece. The preparations were 1.5-mm deep, 3-mm long and 2-mm wide, with the occlusal margin in enamel and the cervical margin extending 0.5 mm below the cementoenamel junction. The preparations were acid etched with 37% phosphoric acid starting at the enamel margins for 30 seconds and rinsed with water for 20 seconds. The preparations were then restored with Compoglass F. 2-Group 2: Bur: The preparations and the treatment procedures were the same as in Group 1, with the exception of 37% phosphoric acid application. Group 3: Air abrasion followed by acid etching: Class V cavity preparations were placed on the buccal surfaces of each tooth using a handpiece of an air-abrasive system (PrepStart, Danville Engineering). The system was supplied with dry compressed air at 80 psi. In all tests, the air-abrasion system was operated with an 80 degrees-angle handpiece tip and 50-mm aluminum oxide particles. A tip with a 0.38-mm inner diameter was used at a 2-mm distance. The treatment procedures were the same as in Groups 1 and 2. Group 4: Air abrasion: The preparations and treatment procedures were the same as in Group 3, with the exception of 37% phosphoric acid. After finishing the restorations, the teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The samples were thermocycled for 500 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C with a dwell time of 30 seconds. The samples were then immersed in 0.5 percent basic fuchsin dye for 24 hours at 37 degrees C. The surface-adhered dye was then rinsed in tap water and the teeth were embedded in a chemically-activated acrylic resin and bisected longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction with a low speed diamond disk. Each section was examined under a stereomicroscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) at 20x magnification. The data were analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance to determine any statistical significant differences in microleakage scores among the groups at a p-value of 0.05. Also, the enamel versus cementum-dentin microleakage scores of each group were compared using z-test at the 0.05 significance level. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p>0.05), but a statistical difference between enamel and cementum-dentin surfaces was evaluated (p<0.05).
本研究比较了传统牙科车针和空气喷砂在有或无酸蚀情况下制备的人类乳磨牙Ⅴ类洞型中复合树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀的边缘微渗漏程度。56颗非龋性拔除的乳磨牙随机分为四组（n = 14），采用四种技术进行制备：第1组：车针制备后酸蚀：使用高速手机在每颗牙齿的颊面制备Ⅴ类洞型。洞深1.5毫米，长3毫米，宽2毫米，咬合边缘位于釉质内，颈部边缘延伸至牙骨质牙釉质界下方0.5毫米。从釉质边缘开始用37%磷酸对洞型进行酸蚀30秒，然后用水冲洗20秒。然后用Compoglass F进行修复。第2组：车针制备：制备方法和治疗程序与第1组相同，但不应用37%磷酸。第3组：空气喷砂后酸蚀：使用空气喷砂系统（PrepStart，丹维尔工程公司）的手机在每颗牙齿的颊面制备Ⅴ类洞型。该系统供应80磅力/平方英寸的干燥压缩空气。在所有测试中，空气喷砂系统使用80度角的手机尖端和50毫米的氧化铝颗粒进行操作。使用内径为0.38毫米的尖端，距离为2毫米。治疗程序与第1组和第2组相同。第4组：空气喷砂：制备方法和治疗程序与第3组相同，但不应用37%磷酸。修复完成后，将牙齿在37℃的蒸馏水中保存24小时。样品在5℃至55℃之间进行500次热循环，保持时间为30秒。然后将样品在37℃下浸入0.5%的碱性品红染料中24小时。然后用自来水冲洗表面附着的染料，将牙齿嵌入化学活化丙烯酸树脂中，并用低速金刚石盘沿近远中方向纵向剖开。在立体显微镜（尼康，日本东京）下以20倍放大率检查每个切片。通过Kruskal-Wallis方差分析对数据进行统计学分析，以确定在p值为0.05时各组间微渗漏评分是否存在任何统计学显著差异。此外，使用z检验在0.05显著性水平下比较每组釉质与牙骨质-牙本质的微渗漏评分。各组间无统计学显著差异（p>0.05），但评估了釉质和牙骨质-牙本质表面之间的统计学差异（p<0.05）。
