Wadenya Rose, Mante F K
Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA.
Pediatr Dent. 2007 Jul-Aug;29(4):303-7.
The objective of this study was to compare the marginal leakage of cervical restorations made using alternative restorative treatment (ART) and conventional glass ionomer restorations.
Sixteen permanent maxillary and mandibular first and second molars extracted for periodontal reasons with Class V carious dentin on the buccal surfaces were prepared using ART while a second set of 29 noncarious molars had Class V preparations made with a high-speed handpiece. The occlusal margin was located in the enamel, and the gingival margin was located in the dentin/cementum. All teeth were restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC). The teeth were thermally stressed for 300 cycles and stained with methylene blue. Samples were sectioned and evaluated for microleakage.
One-way analysis of variance on ranks revealed no significant difference in leakage at both the dentin and enamel margins between the conventional and ART groups. The microleakage at the dentin margin, however, was significantly greater (P < .001) than at the enamel margins in the conventional group.
Alternative restorative treatment with GIC provides enamel and dentin margins that show comparable marginal leakage to conventionally restored permanent teeth. For the conventional restorations, leakage at the dentin margins occurs to a significantly higher extent than at the enamel margins.
本研究的目的是比较使用非传统修复治疗(ART)制作的颈部修复体与传统玻璃离子修复体的边缘渗漏情况。
选取16颗因牙周原因拔除的上颌和下颌第一、二恒磨牙,其颊面有V类龋坏牙本质,采用ART进行制备;另一组29颗非龋坏磨牙用高速手机进行V类洞制备。咬合边缘位于釉质内,牙龈边缘位于牙本质/牙骨质内。所有牙齿均用玻璃离子水门汀(GIC)修复。对牙齿进行300次热循环应力处理,并用亚甲蓝染色。将样本切片并评估微渗漏情况。
秩和的单向方差分析显示,传统组和ART组在牙本质和釉质边缘的渗漏情况无显著差异。然而,在传统组中,牙本质边缘的微渗漏显著大于釉质边缘(P <.001)。
使用GIC的非传统修复治疗所提供的釉质和牙本质边缘,其边缘渗漏情况与传统修复的恒牙相当。对于传统修复体,牙本质边缘的渗漏程度明显高于釉质边缘。