Strobel W O, Petschelt A, Kemmoona M, Frankenberger R
Department/Policlinic of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Aug;32(8):606-13. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01459.x.
summary Ceramic inserts are reported to possibly reduce polymerization shrinkage for posterior resin composite fillings. The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate the effect of different insert systems before and after thermomechanical loading. Sixty sound human third molars received occlusomesial Class II cavities, 40 with proximal margins 2 mm above and 20 with proximal margins 1 mm below the cementum-enamel junction. The specimens were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental groups (n = 10). The enamel-bordered cavities were restored with Syntac classic and Tetric Ceram (ST), Syntac classic, Tetric Ceram and beta-quartz inserts (TB), Syntac classic, Tetric Ceram and Cerana inserts (TC), Syntac classic, Tetric flow and SonicSys approx inserts (TS). The dentin-limited cavities were filled with Syntac classic and Tetic Ceram (DT), Syntac classic, Tetric flow and SonicSys approx inserts (DS). Before and after thermomechanical loading (100 000 x 50 N, 2500 x 5 degrees C/55 degrees C), replicas were made and both interfaces tooth/composite and insert/composite were examined under a scanning electron microscope at 200x. The Cerana and SonicSys insert groups showed significantly less gaps in enamel (P < 0.05). With beta-quartz inserts, no reduction of gaps was found (P > 0.05). Marginal integrity in dentine-bordered specimens could not be improved with SonicSys inserts (P > 0.05). The bonding performance insert/composite was promising for all IPS Empress inserts (Cerana, SonicSys enamel) but worse for beta-quartz inserts. Regarding gap formation between resin composite and tooth, Cerana and SonicSys inserts significantly reduced gaps. The use of SonicSys inserts in deep proximal cavities cannot be recommended.
摘要 据报道，陶瓷嵌体可能会减少后牙树脂复合材料充填体的聚合收缩。本研究的目的是评估不同嵌体系统在热机械加载前后的效果。60颗健康的人第三磨牙制备近中邻面Ⅱ类洞，其中40颗洞的近中边缘位于牙骨质-釉质界上方2mm，20颗洞的近中边缘位于牙骨质-釉质界下方1mm。将标本随机分为六个实验组之一（n = 10）。釉质边缘的洞用Syntac classic和Tetric Ceram（ST）、Syntac classic、Tetric Ceram和β-石英嵌体（TB）、Syntac classic、Tetric Ceram和Cerana嵌体（TC）、Syntac classic、Tetric flow和SonicSys邻面嵌体（TS）修复。牙本质受限的洞用Syntac classic和Tetic Ceram（DT）、Syntac classic、Tetric flow和SonicSys邻面嵌体（DS）充填。在热机械加载（100 000×50 N，2500×5℃/55℃）前后，制作复制品，并在200倍扫描电子显微镜下检查牙齿/复合材料和嵌体/复合材料两个界面。Cerana和SonicSys嵌体组在釉质中的间隙明显较少（P < 0.05）。使用β-石英嵌体时，间隙没有减少（P > 0.05）。SonicSys嵌体不能改善牙本质边缘标本的边缘完整性（P > 0.05）。所有IPS Empress嵌体（Cerana、SonicSys釉质）的嵌体/复合材料粘结性能良好，但β-石英嵌体较差。关于树脂复合材料与牙齿之间的间隙形成，Cerana和SonicSys嵌体显著减少了间隙。不建议在深的近中洞中使用SonicSys嵌体。
