Suppr超能文献

离体恒牙中替代修复治疗与传统玻璃离子修复体边缘微渗漏的体外比较。

An in vitro comparison of marginal microleakage of alternative restorative treatment and conventional glass ionomer restorations in extracted permanent molars.

作者信息

Wadenya Rose, Mante F K

机构信息

Department of Preventive and Restorative Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa, USA.

出版信息

Pediatr Dent. 2007 Jul-Aug;29(4):303-7.

Abstract

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.

摘要

目的

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。

方法

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。

结果

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)。

结论

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。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验