Lim K C
School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
J Endod. 1990 Mar;16(3):116-8. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81586-4.
This study compares the microleakage of a glass ionomer cement, Ketac Fil, used without cavity conditioning, with the established intermediate restorative materials, Cavit-W, and a reinforced zinc oxide-eugenol cement, Kalzinol. Microleakage was assessed using an electrochemical technique. At the end of 30 days, the materials tested, listed in decreasing order of microleakage, were Cavit-W, Ketac Fil inserted without cavity conditioning, Kalzinol, and the control group of Ketac Fil inserted into conditioned cavities. There was no significant difference in the microleakage observed in Ketac Fil restorations inserted without cavity conditioning and Kalzinol (p = 0.450), while the differences between the other groups were highly significant (p less than 0.001).
本研究比较了未进行窝洞预备时使用的玻璃离子水门汀Ketac Fil与已确立的中间修复材料Cavit-W以及增强型氧化锌丁香酚水门汀Kalzinol的微渗漏情况。采用电化学技术评估微渗漏。30天结束时，按微渗漏程度由高到低排列，所测试的材料依次为Cavit-W、未进行窝洞预备时植入的Ketac Fil、Kalzinol以及植入经预备窝洞的Ketac Fil对照组。未进行窝洞预备时植入的Ketac Fil修复体与Kalzinol的微渗漏情况无显著差异（p = 0.450），而其他组之间的差异高度显著（p小于0.001）。
