Parolia Abhishek, Kundabala M, Gupta Vaibhav, Verma Mudita, Batra Chandni, Shenoy Ramya, Srikant N
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Mangalore Manipal University, Karnataka, India.
Indian J Dent Res. 2011 Mar-Apr;22(2):252-5. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.84298.
In an effort to minimize tooth preparation, yet provide additional retention to compromised tooth structure, bonded amalgam restorations were introduced. Various resin-based adhesives have been tried earlier under bonded amalgam restorations. Still there are controversies regarding the outcome of bonded amalgam restorations regarding their adaptability to the tooth structure and microleakage. Therefore, this study was undertaken to compare the microleakage of bonded amalgam restorations using different adhesive materials.
Standard Class I cavities were prepared on occlusal surfaces of 60 human molars. Teeth (n=60) were divided into three groups according to the material employed, as follows: group I: amalgam with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (type I); group II: amalgam with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) and group III: amalgam with Copalex varnish as a control. Following restoration, the teeth were submitted to thermal cycling. The teeth were subsequently immersed in 2% rhodamine B dye under vacuum for 48 hours and sectioned to allow the assessment of microleakage under stereomicroscope.
The values were tabulated and the results were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's post hoc test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Amalgam with type I GIC showed the least leakage with no statistically significant difference (P value 0.226) when compared to amalgam with Panavia F 2.0 and amalgam with varnish (P value 0.107).
It can be concluded that bonded amalgam with type I GIC is a good alternative to amalgam with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) and amalgam with varnish for large restorations, with the added advantages of GICs.
Bonded amalgam restorations prevent over-preparation and reduce the tooth flexure. GIC type I under amalgam provides chemical bonding in between amalgam and tooth structure and thus reduces the microleakage.
为尽量减少牙齿预备量，同时为受损牙体组织提供额外固位力，引入了粘结式汞合金修复体。此前已在粘结式汞合金修复体中尝试使用了各种树脂基粘结剂。然而，关于粘结式汞合金修复体在与牙体组织的适应性及微渗漏方面的效果仍存在争议。因此，开展本研究以比较使用不同粘结材料的粘结式汞合金修复体的微渗漏情况。
在60颗人类磨牙的咬合面制备标准I类洞。根据所使用的材料将牙齿（n = 60）分为三组，如下：第一组：汞合金与玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）（I型）；第二组：汞合金与树脂粘结剂（Panavia F 2.0）；第三组：汞合金与考帕尔克斯清漆作为对照。修复后，对牙齿进行热循环处理。随后将牙齿在真空中浸入2%的罗丹明B染料中48小时，然后切片以便在体视显微镜下评估微渗漏情况。
将数据制成表格，并使用方差分析（ANOVA）、Tukey事后检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验对结果进行统计学分析。与使用Panavia F 2.0的汞合金和使用清漆的汞合金相比，I型GIC的汞合金显示出最少的渗漏，且差异无统计学意义（P值为0.226）（与使用清漆的汞合金相比，P值为0.107）。
可以得出结论，对于大型修复体，I型GIC粘结式汞合金是使用树脂粘结剂（Panavia F 2.0）的汞合金和使用清漆的汞合金的良好替代方案，且具有GIC的额外优势。
粘结式汞合金修复体可防止过度预备并减少牙齿弯曲。汞合金下方的I型GIC在汞合金与牙体组织之间提供化学键合，从而减少微渗漏。
