Blalock John S, Holmes Robert G, Rueggeberg Frederick A
School of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA 30912-1260, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Dec;96(6):424-32. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.09.022.
Room temperature (RT) composite resins are viscous, and this condition may affect the ability of the material to flow and adapt to preparation walls.
The purpose of this study was to compare the film thickness of a variety of commercial composite resins heated prior to light polymerization. The film thickness of these heated materials was also compared to those of flowable products at RT.
Five flowable and 7 conventional composite resins were used: 2 microfills, a nanofill hybrid, 2 submicron hybrids, a trimodal hybrid, and a packable. Composite resin (0.05 mL) was pressed between 2 Mylar-covered glass plates (15 kg) for 180 seconds, light polymerized, and the thickness measured using a micrometer. When comparing conventional composite resin heated to 54 degrees C or 60 degrees C, the RT value was control, while the RT flowable values were control when compared to heated composite resin. (n=5/group). Data were analyzed using 1- and 2-way analysis of variance and the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test (alpha=.05). Correlation of filler content to flow potential was evaluated. Scanning electron microscopic analysis of polymerized specimens was characterized by filler size and shape.
Room temperature conventional composite resin values varied in film thickness. Not all preheated products reduced in thickness. Thickness of the nanofill did not reduce, and one of the submicron hybrids reduced the greatest. No correlation existed between composite resin classification, filler content or shape, and film thickness. No difference in thickness existed between composite resins preheated to 54 degrees C and 60 degrees C. Room temperature and preheated conventional composite resin provided film thickness greater than that of flowable materials.
Preheating conventional composite resin yields lower film thickness for some products, but flow cannot be attributed to composite resin classification, filler content, or shape. Preheated composite resin thickness was greater than that of all flowables.
室温(RT)复合树脂具有粘性,这种情况可能会影响材料的流动能力以及与预备洞壁的贴合度。
本研究的目的是比较多种在光固化前加热的市售复合树脂的薄膜厚度。还将这些加热材料的薄膜厚度与室温下可流动产品的薄膜厚度进行了比较。
使用了5种可流动复合树脂和7种传统复合树脂:2种微填料、1种纳米填料混合树脂、2种亚微米混合树脂、1种三峰混合树脂和1种可压实树脂。将复合树脂(0.05 mL)在两块覆盖聚酯薄膜的玻璃板之间(15 kg)压制180秒,进行光固化,然后使用千分尺测量厚度。在比较加热到54℃或60℃的传统复合树脂时,室温值作为对照,而在与加热的复合树脂比较时,室温下可流动树脂的值作为对照。(每组n = 5)。使用单因素和双因素方差分析以及Tukey-Kramer事后检验(α = 0.05)对数据进行分析。评估填料含量与流动潜能的相关性。通过填料尺寸和形状对聚合标本进行扫描电子显微镜分析。
室温下传统复合树脂的薄膜厚度各不相同。并非所有预热产品的厚度都减小。纳米填料的厚度没有减小,其中一种亚微米混合树脂减小的幅度最大。复合树脂分类、填料含量或形状与薄膜厚度之间不存在相关性。预热到54℃和60℃的复合树脂在厚度上没有差异。室温及预热的传统复合树脂的薄膜厚度大于可流动材料的薄膜厚度。
对某些产品而言,预热传统复合树脂可降低薄膜厚度,但流动性不能归因于复合树脂分类、填料含量或形状。预热复合树脂的厚度大于所有可流动材料的厚度。