Cho Seok-Hwan, Lopez Arnaldo, Berzins David W, Prasad Soni, Ahn Kwang Woo
Assistant Professor and Director, Department of General Dental Sciences Predoctoral Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Marquette University School of Dentistry, 1801 W Wisconsin, Ave, 53233 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA, Phone: (414)288-5411, e-mail:
Marquette University School of Dentistry, Milwaukee Wisconsin, USA.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015 May 1;16(5):347-52. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1688.
This study evaluated the effects of ceramic veneer thicknesses on the polymerization of two different resin cements.
A total of 80 ceramic veneer disks were fabricated by using a pressable ceramic material (e.max Press; Ivoclar Vivadent) from a Low Translucency (LT) ingot (A1 shade). These disks were divided into light-cured (LC; NX3 Nexus LC; Kerr) and dual-cured (DC; NX3 Nexus DC; Kerr) and each group was further divided into four subgroups, based on ceramic disk thickness (0.3, 0.6, 0.9, and 1.2 mm). The values of Vickers microhardness (MH) and degree of conversion (DOC) were obtained for each specimen after a 24-hour storage period. Association between ceramic thickness, resin cement type, and light intensity readings (mW/cm(2)) with respect to microhardness and degree of conversion was statistically evaluated by using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
For the DOC values, there was no significant difference observed among the LC resin cement subgroups, except in the 1.2 mm subgroup; only the DOC value (14.0 ± 7.4%) of 1.2 mm DC resin cement had significantly difference from that value (28.9 ± 7.5%) of 1.2 mm LC resin cement (p < 0.05). For the MH values between LC and DC resin cement groups, there was statistically significant difference (p < 0.05); overall, the MH values of LC resin cement groups demonstrated higher values than DC resin cement groups. On the other hands, among the DC resin cement subgroups, the MH values of 1.2 mm DC subgroup was significantly lower than the 0.3 mm and 0.6 mm subgroups (p < 0.05). However, among the LC subgroups, there was no statistically significant difference among them (p > 0.05).
The degree of conversion and hardness of the resin cement was unaffected with veneering thicknesses between 0.3 and 0.9 mm. However, the DC resin cement group resulted in a significantly lower DOC and MH values for the 1.2 mm subgroup.
While clinically adequate polymerization of LC resin cement can be achieved with a maximum 1.2 mm of porcelain veneer restoration, the increase of curing time or light intensity is clinically needed for DC resin cements at the thickness of more than 0.9 mm.
本研究评估了陶瓷贴面厚度对两种不同树脂水门汀聚合反应的影响。
使用可压式陶瓷材料(e.max Press;义获嘉伟瓦登特公司)从低透明度(LT)铸块(A1色)制作了总共80个陶瓷贴面圆盘。这些圆盘被分为光固化(LC;NX3 Nexus LC;卡瓦公司)和双重固化(DC;NX3 Nexus DC;卡瓦公司)两组,并且每组根据陶瓷圆盘厚度(0.3、0.6、0.9和1.2毫米)进一步分为四个亚组。在储存24小时后,获得每个样本的维氏显微硬度(MH)值和转化率(DOC)值。通过方差分析(ANOVA)对陶瓷厚度、树脂水门汀类型以及关于显微硬度和转化率的光强度读数(mW/cm²)之间的关联进行统计学评估。
对于DOC值,除了1.2毫米亚组外,LC树脂水门汀亚组之间未观察到显著差异;仅1.2毫米DC树脂水门汀的DOC值(14.0 ± 7.4%)与1.2毫米LC树脂水门汀的该值(28.9 ± 7.5%)有显著差异(p < 0.05)。对于LC和DC树脂水门汀组之间的MH值,存在统计学显著差异(p < 0.05);总体而言,LC树脂水门汀组的MH值高于DC树脂水门汀组。另一方面,在DC树脂水门汀亚组中,1.2毫米DC亚组的MH值显著低于0.3毫米和0.6毫米亚组(p < 0.05)。然而,在LC亚组之间,未观察到统计学显著差异(p > 0.05)。
当贴面厚度在0.3至0.9毫米之间时,树脂水门汀的转化率和硬度不受影响。然而,对于1.2毫米亚组,DC树脂水门汀组的DOC和MH值显著较低。
虽然对于LC树脂水门汀,使用最大1.2毫米的瓷贴面修复可实现临床上足够的聚合反应,但对于厚度超过0.9毫米的DC树脂水门汀,临床上需要增加固化时间或光强度。