Ozel Emre, Tuna Elif Bahar, Firatli Erhan
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Kocaeli, Kocaeli, Turkey.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.
Scanning. 2016 Sep;38(5):389-395. doi: 10.1002/sca.21282. Epub 2015 Nov 5.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how two cavity-filling techniques affect microleakage in class II resin restorations prepared with Er:YAG laser and diamond bur. Standard MO and DO cavities were prepared in 20 extracted third molars, each randomly assigned to either Group-1 [Herculite XRV Ultra-bur-prepared cavity(bp)], Group-2 [Herculite XRV Ultra-laser-prepared cavity(lp)], Group-3 (SonicFill-(bp)], or Group-4 [SonicFill-(lp)]. For Groups 2 and 4, cavities were prepared by using an Er:YAG laser with a wavelength of 2.94 μm, output power of 200 mJ/pulse, and repetition rate of 20Hz. Teeth were restored with a one-step, self-etch adhesive material (OptiBond All-in-One), a nanohybrid composite (Herculite XRV Ultra), and a bulk-fill composite (SonicFill) according to the manufacturer's instructions. Five teeth from each group were chosen for microleakage investigation and two teeth for scanning electron microscope evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed by using Kruskal-Wallis test. Pair-wise comparisons were performed by Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction (p < 0.05). The statistical analysis of data revealed greater microleakage in cervical versus occlusal regions in all groups (P < 0.05). Group-2 yielded a higher degree of marginal leakage than Group-3 in terms of occlusal surfaces (p < 0.05). For cervical regions, a statistically significant difference was observed between Groups 2 and 3 as well as Groups 2 and 4 (p < 0.05). Group-3 exhibited significantly better marginal sealing than Group-1 in the cervical region (p < 0.05). The cavities prepared using an Er:YAG laser showed greater microleakage than those conventionally prepared using burs regardless of restorative material at both occlusal and cervical margins. SCANNING 38:389-395, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
本研究的目的是调查两种窝洞充填技术如何影响用铒钇铝石榴石(Er:YAG)激光和金刚砂车针制备的Ⅱ类树脂修复体中的微渗漏情况。在20颗拔除的第三磨牙上制备标准的近中(MO)和远中(DO)窝洞,每颗牙齿随机分配到第1组[用Herculite XRV Ultra车针制备的窝洞(bp)]、第2组[用Herculite XRV Ultra激光制备的窝洞(lp)]、第3组[SonicFill-(bp)]或第4组[SonicFill-(lp)]。对于第2组和第4组,使用波长为2.94μm、输出功率为200mJ/脉冲、重复频率为20Hz的Er:YAG激光制备窝洞。按照制造商的说明,用一步法自酸蚀粘结材料(OptiBond All-in-One)、纳米混合树脂(Herculite XRV Ultra)和大块充填树脂(SonicFill)对牙齿进行修复。每组选择5颗牙齿进行微渗漏调查,2颗牙齿进行扫描电子显微镜评估。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验进行统计分析。采用Mann-Whitney U检验并进行Bonferroni校正(p < 0.05)进行两两比较。数据的统计分析显示,所有组中颈部区域的微渗漏均大于咬合面区域(P < 0.05)。就咬合面而言,第2组的边缘渗漏程度高于第3组(p < 0.05)。对于颈部区域,第2组和第3组以及第2组和第4组之间观察到统计学上的显著差异(p < 0.05)。在颈部区域,第3组的边缘封闭明显优于第1组(p < 0.05)。无论使用何种修复材料,使用Er:YAG激光制备的窝洞在咬合面和颈部边缘处的微渗漏均比传统用车针制备的窝洞更大。《扫描》38:389 - 395,2016年。© 2015威利期刊公司