Suppr超能文献

不同修复材料在乳牙磨牙中边缘微渗漏的比较评估:一项体外研究

A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Materials in Deciduous Molars: An in vitro Study.

作者信息

Yadav Gunjan, Rehani Usha, Rana Vivek

机构信息

Senior Lecturer, Department of Pedodontics, Sardar Patel Post Graduate Institute of Dental and Medical Sciences, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India, e-mail:

Ex-Professor and Head, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Subharti Dental College, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India.

出版信息

Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012 May;5(2):101-7. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1145. Epub 2012 Aug 8.

Abstract

CONTEXT

Microleakage around dental restorative materials is a major problem in clinical dentistry. Inspite of many new restorative materials available in the market very few actually bond to the tooth surface.

AIMS

The aims of this study were: (1) To evaluate and compare the marginal leakage of newer restorative materials viz colored compomer, ormocer, giomer and RMGIC in class I restoration of deciduous molars. (2) To compare the microleakage scores between the groups of: Colored compomer and ormocer, giomer and RMGIC, ormocer with giomer and RMGIC, giomer with RMGIC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 primary molars were randomly divided into four groups of 10 each. Class I cavities were prepared and the cavities were restored with colored compomer (Group A), Ormocer (Group B), Giomer (Group C) and RMGIC (Group D). The teeth were thermocycled and subjected to 0.5% basic fuchsin dye penetration followed by sectioning. The cut sections were evaluated under a stereomicroscope and the data was subjected to statistical analysis.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Mann-Whitney U test and Student t-test.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed when colored compomer was compared to ormocer, giomer and RMGIC. Ormocer showed significantly lower microleakage when compared to giomer. However, no significant difference was observed when ormocer was compared to RMGIC. No significant difference between giomer and RMGIC was found.

CONCLUSION

Ormocer has proven to be an excellent restorative material as it showed least microleakage followed by colored compomer, giomer and RMGIC in increasing order. How to cite this article: Yadav G, Rehani U, Rana V. A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Materials in Deciduous Molars: An in vitro Study . Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(2):101-107.

摘要

背景

牙科修复材料周围的微渗漏是临床牙科中的一个主要问题。尽管市场上有许多新型修复材料,但实际上很少能与牙齿表面粘结。

目的

本研究的目的是:(1)评估并比较新型修复材料即彩色复合体、有机陶瓷、聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀在乳牙第一类洞修复中的边缘渗漏情况。(2)比较彩色复合体与有机陶瓷、聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀、有机陶瓷与聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体及树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀、聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀各组之间的微渗漏评分。

材料与方法

总共40颗乳牙随机分为四组,每组10颗。制备第一类洞型,并用彩色复合体(A组)、有机陶瓷(B组)、聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体(C组)和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(D组)进行修复。对牙齿进行热循环处理,然后用0.5%碱性品红染料渗透,随后进行切片。在体视显微镜下评估切片,并对数据进行统计分析。

使用的统计分析方法

曼-惠特尼U检验和学生t检验。

结果

将彩色复合体与有机陶瓷、聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀进行比较时,未观察到显著差异。与聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体相比,有机陶瓷的微渗漏显著更低。然而,将有机陶瓷与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀进行比较时,未观察到显著差异。聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀之间未发现显著差异。

结论

事实证明,有机陶瓷是一种优异的修复材料,因为它的微渗漏最少,其次是彩色复合体、聚酸改性玻璃离子复合体和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀,呈递增顺序。如何引用本文:Yadav G, Rehani U, Rana V. A Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Leakage of Different Restorative Materials in Deciduous Molars: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5(2):101 - 107.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7a9a/4148735/f1744c60eb8a/ijcpd-05-101-g001.jpg

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