Celik Cigdem, Cehreli Sevi Burcak, Arhun Neslihan
Departments of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Bahcelievler, Ankara, Turkiye.
Departments of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Bahcelievler, Ankara, Turkiye.
Eur J Dent. 2015 Jan-Mar;9(1):92-99. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.149652.
The aim was to evaluate the effect of different adhesive systems and surface treatments on the integrity of resin-resin and resin-tooth interfaces after partial removal of preexisting resin composites using quantitative image analysis for microleakage testing protocol.
A total of 80 human molar teeth were restored with either of the resin composites (Filtek Z250/GrandioSO) occlusally. The teeth were thermocycled (1000×). Mesial and distal 1/3 parts of the restorations were removed out leaving only middle part. One side of the cavity was finished with course diamond bur and the other was air-abraded with 50 μm Al2O3. They were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10) to receive: Group 1: Adper Single Bond 2; Group 2: All Bond 3; Group 3: ClearfilSE; Group 4: BeautiBond, before being repaired with the same resin composite (Filtek Z250). The specimens were re-thermocycled (1000×), sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin, sectioned mesiodistally and photographed digitally. The extent of dye penetration was measured by image analysis software (ImageJ) for both bur-finished and air-abraded surfaces at resin-tooth and resin-resin interfaces. The data were analyzed statistically.
BeautiBond exhibited the most microleakage at every site. Irrespective of adhesive and initial composite type, air-abrasion showed less microleakage except for BeautiBond. The type of initial repaired restorative material did not affect the microleakage. BeautiBond adhesive may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.
Surface treatment with air-abrasion produced the lowest microleakage scores, independent of the adhesive systems and the pre-existing resin composite type. Pre-existing composite type does not affect the microleakage issue. All-in-one adhesive resin (BeautiBond) may not be preferred in resin composite repair in terms of microleakage prevention.
旨在通过定量图像分析微渗漏测试方案,评估在部分去除预先存在的树脂复合材料后,不同粘结系统和表面处理对树脂-树脂以及树脂-牙界面完整性的影响。
总共80颗人类磨牙在咬合面用两种树脂复合材料(Filtek Z250/GrandioSO)中的一种进行修复。对牙齿进行热循环(1000次)。修复体的近中及远中1/3部分被去除,仅留下中间部分。窝洞的一侧用粗粒度金刚石车针修整,另一侧用50μm的Al2O3进行气磨。将它们随机分为四组(n = 10),分别接受:第1组:Adper Single Bond 2;第2组:All Bond 3;第3组:ClearfilSE;第4组:BeautiBond,然后用相同的树脂复合材料(Filtek Z250)进行修复。对标本再次进行热循环(1000次),用指甲油密封,用0.5%碱性品红染色,沿近远中方向切片并进行数码拍照。通过图像分析软件(ImageJ)测量在树脂-牙及树脂-树脂界面处车针修整表面和气磨表面的染料渗透程度。对数据进行统计学分析。
BeautiBond在每个部位的微渗漏最为严重。无论粘结剂和初始复合材料类型如何,除BeautiBond外,气磨显示出的微渗漏较少。初始修复性材料的类型不影响微渗漏。就预防微渗漏而言,在树脂复合材料修复中BeautiBond粘结剂可能不是首选。
气磨表面处理产生的微渗漏评分最低,与粘结系统和预先存在的树脂复合材料类型无关。预先存在的复合材料类型不影响微渗漏问题。就预防微渗漏而言,在树脂复合材料修复中一体式粘结树脂(BeautiBond)可能不是首选。