Corona Silmara Aparecida Milori, Borsatto Maria Cristina, Rocha Renata Andréa Salvitti de Sá, Palma-Dibb Regina Guenka
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Preventive and Social Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2005;16(1):35-8. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402005000100006. Epub 2005 Aug 17.
This in vitro study assessed the marginal microleakage on class V cavities prepared with aluminum oxide air abrasion and restored with different glass ionomer cements. The cavities were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 15 sound third molars with an air- abrasion device (Kreativ Mach 4.1; New Image) using a 27.5-microm aluminum oxide particle stream, and were assigned to 3 groups of 10 cavities each. The restorative materials were: group I, a conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac-Fil); groups II and III, resin-modified glass ionomer cements (Vitremer R and Fuji II LC, respectively). After placement of the restorations, the teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, polished and then submitted to a thermocycling regimen of 500 cycles, isolated, immersed in 0.2% Rhodamine B solution for 24 h, included and serially sectioned. Microleakage was assessed by viewing the specimens under an optical microscope connected to a color video camera and a computer. The images obtained were digitized and analyzed for microleakage using software that allows for a standard quantitative assessment of dye penetration in millimeters. Statistical analysis was done using the Kruskall-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests. Means of dye penetration (%) were: occlusal - I: 25.76 +/- 34.35, II: 20.00 +/- 42.16, III: 28.25 +/- 41.67; cervical - I: 23.72 +/- 41.84; II: 44.22 +/- 49.69, III: 39.27 +/- 50.74. No statistically significant differences (p>0.05) were observed among either the glass ionomer cements or the margins. In conclusion, class V cavities restored with either conventional or resin-modified glass ionomer cements after preparation with aluminum oxide air abrasion did not show complete sealing at the enamel and dentin/cementum margins.
这项体外研究评估了用氧化铝气磨制备并使用不同玻璃离子水门汀修复的V类洞的边缘微渗漏情况。在15颗完好的第三磨牙的颊面和舌面,使用气磨设备(Kreativ Mach 4.1;New Image),以27.5微米的氧化铝颗粒流制备洞型,并将其分为3组,每组10个洞。修复材料分别为:I组,传统玻璃离子水门汀(Ketac - Fil);II组和III组,树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(分别为Vitremer R和Fuji II LC)。修复体就位后,将牙齿在37℃蒸馏水中储存24小时,打磨后进行500次循环的热循环处理,隔湿,浸入0.2%罗丹明B溶液中24小时,包埋并连续切片。通过连接彩色摄像机和计算机的光学显微镜观察标本评估微渗漏情况。获取的图像进行数字化处理,并使用能够对染料渗透进行毫米级标准定量评估的软件分析微渗漏情况。采用Kruskall - Wallis和Wilcoxon检验进行统计分析。染料渗透平均值(%)为:咬合面 - I组:25.76±34.35,II组:20.00±42.16,III组:28.25±41.67;颈部 - I组:23.72±41.84;II组:44.22±49.69,III组:39.27±50.74。在玻璃离子水门汀之间或边缘处均未观察到统计学上的显著差异(p>0.05)。总之,用氧化铝气磨制备后用传统或树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀修复的V类洞在釉质与牙本质/牙骨质边缘未显示完全封闭。