Lausch J, Askar H, Paris S, Meyer-Lueckel H
Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany.
J Dent. 2017 Feb;57:73-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.12.010. Epub 2016 Dec 30.
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate three treatment modalities [infiltrant resin (IR), micro-filled infiltrant resin (MFIR), infiltrant-sealant-combination (ISC)] regarding both their abilities to penetrate lesions differing in ICDAS-codes and to fill fissures and cavities.
Extracted human molars (n=90) showing fissure caries lesions with and without cavitations were etched with 15% hydrochloric acid (HCl) that was mixed with abrasives and a 15% HCl-solution (1:1). The etching gel was rubbed for 30s within the fissure and, if eligible, within the cavity using a brush. After this pretreatment an infiltrant (Icon; DMG; IR) or an infiltrant mixed with microfillers (MFIR) was applied. ISC included the application of an infiltrant followed by a fissure sealant (Helioseal; Ivoclar Vivadent) From each tooth slices showing a non-cavitated (based on ICDAS-2) or cavitated lesion part (based on ICDAS-3/5) were prepared. Lesion (LA) and penetration areas (PA) as well as the completeness of fissure and cavity filling were analyzed using dual staining and confocal laser scanning microscopy.
Percentage penetration (PP) was calculated as 100×PA/LA. PP [median (25th/75th)] did not differ significantly between IR [95 (86/100)%], MFIR [93 (62/100)%] or ISC [89 (67/97)%] (p>0.05; Kruskal-Wallis test). All three materials filled about 90% of the dimensions of fissures and cavities (p>0.05; Kruskal-Wallis test).
It can be concluded that MFIR seems to be suitable to fill fissures and cavities like a fissure sealant and that it penetrates fissure caries lesions similarly deep as the conventional infiltrant after an experimental etching regime.
The MFIR seems to combine advantages of the fissure sealing and the caries infiltration procedure.
本体外研究旨在评估三种治疗方式[渗透树脂（IR）、微填料渗透树脂（MFIR）、渗透 - 封闭剂组合（ISC）]在穿透不同国际龋病检测和评估系统（ICDAS）编码病变以及填充裂隙和龋洞方面的能力。
选取90颗有或无龋洞的患有裂隙龋损的拔除人类磨牙，用与磨料混合的15%盐酸（HCl）和15% HCl溶液（1:1）进行酸蚀。使用刷子在裂隙内摩擦蚀刻凝胶30秒，若符合条件，在龋洞内也摩擦30秒。预处理后，应用渗透剂（Icon；DMG；IR）或与微填料混合的渗透剂（MFIR）。ISC包括先应用渗透剂，然后应用裂隙封闭剂（Helioseal；义获嘉伟瓦登特）。从每颗牙齿制备显示非龋洞（基于ICDAS - 2）或龋洞病变部分（基于ICDAS - 3/5）的切片。使用双重染色和共聚焦激光扫描显微镜分析病变（LA）和渗透区域（PA）以及裂隙和龋洞填充的完整性。
渗透百分比（PP）计算为100×PA/LA。IR[95（86/100）%]、MFIR[93（62/100）%]或ISC[89（67/97）%]之间的PP[中位数（第25/75百分位数）]差异无统计学意义（p>0.05；Kruskal - Wallis检验）。所有三种材料填充了约90%的裂隙和龋洞尺寸（p>0.05；Kruskal - Wallis检验）。
可以得出结论，在实验性酸蚀方案后，MFIR似乎适合像裂隙封闭剂一样填充裂隙和龋洞，并且其穿透裂隙龋损病变的深度与传统渗透剂相似。
MFIR似乎结合了裂隙封闭和龋病渗透程序的优点。
