Khan Tabinda Nawaz, Ali Abidi Syed Yawar, Nawaz Khan Khush Bakht, Ahmed Shahbaz, Rehman Qazi Fazal Ur, Saeed Noureen
Department of Dental Materials, Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Science, (DUHS), Karachi.
Department of Operative Dentistry, Dr. Ishrat-ul-Ebad Khan Institute of Oral Health Science, (DUHS), Karachi.
J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2015 Nov;25(11):781-4.
To evaluate the sealing ability of two different types of Glass Ionomer Cements (GICs) used for sandwich restorations and assess the effect of acid etching of GIC on microleakage at GIC-resin composite interface.
Experimental study.
Department of Operative, DIEKIOHS (DUHS) and NED University, Karachi, from February to June 2011.
Eighty cavities were prepared on the proximal surfaces of 40 permanent human premolars (2 cavities per tooth), assigned to 4 groups (n=20) and restored as follows: Group CIE - Conventional GIC (CI) was applied onto the axial and cervical cavity walls, allowed setting for 5 minutes and acid etched (E) along the cavity margins with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds, washed for 30 seconds and dried; the adhesive system was applied and light cured for 10 seconds, completing the restoration with composite resin light cured for 40 seconds; Group CIN - same as Group CIE, except for acid etching of the CI surface; Group RME - same as CIE, but using a resin modified GIC (RMGIC); Group RMN - same as Group RME, except for acid etching of the RMGIC surface. Specimens were soaked in 1% methylene blue dye solution at 37ºC for 24 hours, rinsed under running water for 15 minutes, bisected mesiodistally and dye penetration was measured following the ISO/TS 11405-2003 standard. Kruskal Wallis and post Hoc tests significant differences in the microleakage among all the four groups.
There was a significant difference between the two groups of GICs (RMGIC and CI, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in between the two sub-groups that is between CIN and CIE (p=0.656), and between Groups RME and RMN (p=0.995).
Phosphoric acid etching of GIC, prior to the placement of composite resin, does not improve the sealing ability of sandwich restorations. RMGIC was more effective in preventing dye penetration at the GIC-resin composite dentine interfaces than CI.
评估用于三明治修复的两种不同类型玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）的封闭能力，并评估GIC酸蚀对GIC - 树脂复合体界面微渗漏的影响。
实验研究。
2011年2月至6月，在卡拉奇的迪基奥赫斯（DUHS）和NED大学口腔手术科。
在40颗恒牙前磨牙的近中面制备80个窝洞（每颗牙2个窝洞），分为4组（n = 20），并按以下方式进行修复：CIE组 - 将传统GIC（CI）涂覆在轴向和颈部洞壁上放置5分钟，然后沿洞缘用37%磷酸酸蚀（E）15秒，冲洗30秒并干燥；应用粘结系统并光照固化10秒，用复合树脂光照固化40秒完成修复；CIN组 - 与CIE组相同，除了不对CI表面进行酸蚀；RME组 - 与CIE组相同，但使用树脂改性GIC（RMGIC）；RMN组 - 与RME组相同，除了不对RMGIC表面进行酸蚀。将标本在37℃的1%亚甲蓝染料溶液中浸泡24小时，流水冲洗15分钟，沿近远中方向切开，按照ISO/TS 11405 - 2003标准测量染料渗透情况。Kruskal Wallis检验和事后检验显示四组之间微渗漏存在显著差异。
两组GIC（RMGIC和CI）之间存在显著差异（p = 0.001）。两个亚组之间即CIN和CIE之间（p = 0.656）以及RME组和RMN组之间（p = 0.995）没有显著差异。
在复合树脂放置前对GIC进行磷酸酸蚀并不能提高三明治修复的封闭能力。在防止染料渗透到GIC - 树脂复合体牙本质界面方面，RMGIC比CI更有效。
