McHugh Lauren E J, Politi Ioanna, Al-Fodeh Rami S, Fleming Garry J P
Materials Science Unit, Dublin Dental University Hospital, Lincoln Place, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Department of Prosthodontics, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid 22110, Jordan.
Dent Mater. 2017 Sep;33(9):e329-e335. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.06.001. Epub 2017 Jul 5.
To assess the cuspal deflection of standardised large mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities in third molar teeth restored using conventional resin-based composite (RBC) or their bulk fill restorative counterparts compared with the unbound condition using a twin channel deflection measuring gauge. Following thermocycling, the cervical microleakage of the restored teeth was assessed to determine marginal integrity.
Standardised MOD cavities were prepared in forty-eight sound third molar teeth and randomly allocated to six groups. Restorations were placed in conjunction with (and without) a universal bonding system and resin restorative materials were irradiated with a light-emitting-diode light-curing-unit. The dependent variable was the restoration protocol, eight oblique increments for conventional RBCs or two horizontal increments for the bulk fill resin restoratives. The cumulative buccal and palatal cuspal deflections from a twin channel deflection measuring gauge were summed, the restored teeth thermally fatigued, immersed in 0.2% basic fuchsin dye for 24h, sectioned and examined for cervical microleakage score.
The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) identified third molar teeth restored using conventional RBC materials had significantly higher mean total cuspal deflection values compared with bulk fill resin restorative restoration (all p<0.0001). For the conventional RBCs, Admira Fusion (bonded) third molar teeth had significantly the lowest microleakage scores (all p<0.001) while the Admira Fusion x-tra (bonded) bulk fill resin restored teeth had significantly the lowest microleakage scores compared with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (bonded and non-bonded) teeth (all p<0.001).
Not all conventional RBCs or bulk fill resin restoratives behave in a similar manner when used to restore standardised MOD cavities in third molar teeth. It would appear that light irradiation of individual conventional RBCs or bulk fill resin restoratives may be problematic such that material selection is vital in the absence of clinical data.
使用双通道挠度测量仪,评估使用传统树脂基复合材料(RBC)或其大块充填修复材料修复的第三磨牙标准化大近中-牙合-远中(MOD)洞与未充填状态相比的牙尖挠度。热循环后,评估修复后牙齿的颈部微渗漏情况以确定边缘完整性。
在48颗完好的第三磨牙上制备标准化MOD洞,并随机分为6组。修复时结合(或不结合)通用粘结系统,树脂修复材料用发光二极管光固化单元照射。因变量是修复方案,传统RBC材料为8次倾斜增量,大块充填树脂修复材料为2次水平增量。将双通道挠度测量仪测得的颊侧和腭侧牙尖累积挠度相加,对修复后的牙齿进行热疲劳处理,浸入0.2%碱性品红染料中24小时,切片并检查颈部微渗漏评分。
单因素方差分析(ANOVA)表明,与大块充填树脂修复相比,使用传统RBC材料修复的第三磨牙平均总牙尖挠度值显著更高(所有p<(0.0001))。对于传统RBC材料,Admira Fusion(粘结)的第三磨牙微渗漏评分显著最低(所有p<(0.001)),而与Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill(粘结和未粘结)牙齿相比,Admira Fusion x-tra(粘结)大块充填树脂修复的牙齿微渗漏评分显著最低(所有p<(0.001))。
当用于修复第三磨牙的标准化MOD洞时,并非所有传统RBC材料或大块充填树脂修复材料的表现都相似。看来对单个传统RBC材料或大块充填树脂修复材料进行光照射可能存在问题,因此在缺乏临床数据的情况下,材料选择至关重要。