Suppr超能文献

封闭剂对咬合面窝沟的适应性及渗入情况。

Sealant adaptation and penetration into occlusal fissures.

作者信息

Kane Barbara, Karren Jordan, Garcia-Godoy Cristina, Garcia-Godoy Franklin

机构信息

College of Dental Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, 3200 South University Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33328, USA.

出版信息

Am J Dent. 2009 Apr;22(2):89-91.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the adaptation and penetration into occlusal fissures of two different types of fissure sealants.

METHODS

Extracted third molars (n=10) with evident occlusal fissures were cleaned with a pumice/water slurry and randomly divided into two groups and sealed following the manufacturers' directions as follows: Group 1--Embrace fissure sealant (Pulpdent). Surfaces were cleaned and dried, then etched for 15 seconds. Excess water was removed leaving the surface slightly moist. Sealant was applied from cusp to cusp without covering marginal ridges and light cured for 20 seconds using a halogen light at 500 mW/cm2. Group 2--ClinPro (3M Espe). Surfaces were cleaned and dried then etched for 15 seconds. The etched surface was rinsed and thoroughly dried. Dried surfaces appeared frosty white. Sealant was placed making sure not to go beyond etched area, and light cured for 20 seconds. Teeth were thermocycled (500x) and sectioned with an Isomet in a mesio-distal direction (4 slices per tooth). The sections were examined under the SEM. The marginal adaptation of the sealants was evaluated under the SEM using the following criteria: 1 = Smooth adaptation. Sealant flows with enamel. No ledges; 2 = Sealant is not well adapted. Ledge may be present. The penetration ability of the sealants was evaluated under the SEM using the following criteria: 1 = Sealant penetrated 1/3 the total length of the fissure; 2 = Sealant penetrated 1/2 the total length of the fissure; 3 = Sealant penetrated the total length of the fissure. The results were statistically analyzed using a t-test.

RESULTS

Embrace showed consistently more intimate marginal adaptation than ClinPro in fissures of the same approximate width and depth (P < 0.05).

摘要

目的

评估两种不同类型的窝沟封闭剂在咬合面窝沟中的适应性和渗入情况。

方法

选取10颗有明显咬合面窝沟的拔除第三磨牙,用浮石/水浆进行清洁,随机分为两组,并按照制造商的说明进行封闭,如下:第1组——Embrace窝沟封闭剂(Pulpdent公司)。清洁并干燥表面,然后酸蚀15秒。去除多余水分,使表面略湿润。从牙尖到牙尖涂抹封闭剂,不覆盖边缘嵴,并用500 mW/cm²的卤素灯光照固化20秒。第2组——ClinPro(3M Espe公司)。清洁并干燥表面,然后酸蚀15秒。冲洗酸蚀后的表面并彻底干燥。干燥后的表面呈霜白色。放置封闭剂,确保不超出酸蚀区域,光照固化20秒。对牙齿进行500次热循环,然后用Isomet锯沿近远中方向切片(每颗牙齿切4片)。切片在扫描电子显微镜下检查。在扫描电子显微镜下根据以下标准评估封闭剂的边缘适应性:1 = 适应性良好。封闭剂与牙釉质贴合。无台阶;2 = 封闭剂适应性不佳。可能存在台阶。在扫描电子显微镜下根据以下标准评估封闭剂的渗入能力:1 = 封闭剂渗入窝沟总长度的1/3;2 = 封闭剂渗入窝沟总长度的1/2;3 = 封闭剂渗入窝沟总长度。使用t检验对结果进行统计学分析。

结果

在相同大致宽度和深度的窝沟中,Embrace封闭剂的边缘适应性始终比ClinPro更紧密(P < 0.05)。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验