Yang Hongye, Guo Jingmei, Guo Jinxin, Chen Hongfei, Somar Mirinal, Yue Jiaxi, Huang Cui
The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology (Hubei-MOST) and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedical Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University.
Dent Mater J. 2015;34(5):654-62. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2015-051.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the capability and characteristics of different nanoleakage observation methods, including light microscope (LM), field-emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM), transmission electron microscope (TEM), and confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). Dentin specimens were bonded with either an etch-and-rinse adhesive (SBMP) or a self-etch adhesive (GB), and prepared for nanoleakge evaluation according to different observation methods. LM, FESEM and CLSM results demonstrated that the SBMP group showed more interfacial nanoleakage than the GB group (p<0.05); by contrast, no significant difference was found in TEM results (p>0.05), however, TEM illustrated concrete nanoleakage forms or patterns. The results suggested that different observation methods might exhibit distinct images and a certain degree of variations in nanoleakage statistical results. Researchers should carefully design and calculate the optimum assembly in combination with qualitative and quantitative approaches to obtain objective and accurate nanoleakage evaluation.
本研究的目的是评估不同纳米渗漏观察方法的能力和特点，包括光学显微镜（LM）、场发射扫描电子显微镜（FESEM）、透射电子显微镜（TEM）和共聚焦激光扫描显微镜（CLSM）。牙本质标本用酸蚀冲洗粘结剂（SBMP）或自酸蚀粘结剂（GB）粘结，并根据不同观察方法制备用于纳米渗漏评估。光学显微镜、场发射扫描电子显微镜和共聚焦激光扫描显微镜结果表明，SBMP组比GB组表现出更多的界面纳米渗漏（p<0.05）；相比之下，透射电子显微镜结果未发现显著差异（p>0.05），然而，透射电子显微镜显示了具体的纳米渗漏形式或模式。结果表明，不同的观察方法可能呈现出不同的图像，并且在纳米渗漏统计结果上存在一定程度的差异。研究人员应结合定性和定量方法仔细设计并计算最佳组合，以获得客观准确的纳米渗漏评估。
