Shafiei Leila, Mojiri Parinaz, Ghahraman Yalda, Rakhshan Vahid
Professor, Department of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran, e-mail:
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013 May 1;14(3):461-7. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1345.
This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of Class V restorations filled with a 7th-generation self-adhesive composite.
In 40 permanent premolars and 80 primary canines, 160 Class V cavities were prepared, which were filled with four restorative materials (n of each material=20 permanent and 20 primary restorations): control: nonbonded composite (Heliomolar), GI: glass ionomer (Fuji IX GP), BC: bonded Heliomolar, SC: self-adhesive composite (Embrace WetBond). Dye penetration was scored 0 to 4 at 160 coronal and 160 gingival margins under 40× magnification by two examiners. The data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U test (α=0.01).
The mean microleakages of the materials (in the order of 'control, GI, BC, SC') at each margin-dentition (n=20 margins) were: coronal-permanent (3.25±0.72, 2.75±0.72, 0.35±0.59, 2.7±0.73), coronal-primary (3.3±0.66, 2.85±0.88, 0.55±0.76, 2.65±1.14), gingival-permanent (3.35±0.67, 0.85±0.67, 2.95±0.83, 1.55±1.23), and gingival-primary (3.25±0.72, 0.85±0.59, 2.85±0.89, 2.85±0.93). Compared with the control microleakage at each margin-dentition (each group's n=20 margins), BC microleakage was significantly lesser at coronal margins only (p=0.000), GI microleakage was lower at gingival margins only (p=0.000), and SC microleakage was smaller at gingival margins of permanent teeth only (p=0.000). After combining coronal/gingival margins, only SC microleakage in primary dentition (n=40 margins) was not significantly lesser than the control in primary teeth (p=0.018); and microleakage of all other material-dentitions were lesser than corresponding control-dentitions (p=0.000). Permanent and primary teeth had similar results for all material-margins (p>0.5) except for SC at gingival margins (p=0.001).
SC should be used only at gingival margins of permanent teeth.
Application of self-adhesive composite should be limited to gingival margins of permanent teeth.
本研究旨在评估用第七代自粘性复合材料充填的Ⅴ类洞修复体的微渗漏情况。
在40颗恒牙前磨牙和80颗乳牙尖牙上制备160个Ⅴ类洞，用四种修复材料进行充填（每种材料充填20个恒牙修复体和20个乳牙修复体）：对照组：非粘结性复合材料（Heliomolar），玻璃离子水门汀（GI）：玻璃离子粘固剂（Fuji IX GP），粘结性Heliomolar（BC），自粘性复合材料（SC）：Embrace WetBond。由两名检查者在40倍放大倍数下对160个冠方边缘和160个龈方边缘的染料渗透情况进行0至4分的评分。采用Mann-Whitney U检验对数据进行分析（α=0.01）。
在每个边缘-牙列（n=20个边缘）处，各材料的平均微渗漏情况（按“对照组、玻璃离子水门汀、粘结性Heliomolar、自粘性复合材料”顺序排列）如下：冠方-恒牙（3.25±0.72、2.75±0.72、0.35±0.59、2.7±0.73），冠方-乳牙（3.3±0.66、2.85±0.88、0.55±0.76、2.65±1.14），龈方-恒牙（3.35±0.67、0.85±0.67、2.95±0.83、1.55±1.23），龈方-乳牙（3.25±0.72、0.85±0.59、2.85±0.89、2.85±0.93）。与每个边缘-牙列处的对照组微渗漏情况（每组n=20个边缘）相比，仅在冠方边缘处粘结性Heliomolar的微渗漏明显较少（p=0.000），仅在龈方边缘处玻璃离子水门汀的微渗漏较低（p=0.000），仅在恒牙的龈方边缘处自粘性复合材料的微渗漏较小（p=0.000）。在合并冠方/龈方边缘后，仅乳牙列中自粘性复合材料的微渗漏（n=40个边缘）不比乳牙对照组的微渗漏明显少（p=0.018）；所有其他材料-牙列的微渗漏均低于相应的对照组-牙列（p=0.000）。除龈方边缘处的自粘性复合材料外（p=0.001），所有材料-边缘在恒牙和乳牙上的结果相似（p>0.5）。
自粘性复合材料仅应使用于恒牙的龈方边缘。
自粘性复合材料的应用应仅限于恒牙的龈方边缘。
Zotero 插件