Singhal Sakshi, Gurtu Anuraag, Singhal Anurag, Bansal Rashmi, Mohan Sumit
Postgraduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India.
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Aug;11(8):ZC67-ZC70. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/20159.10440. Epub 2017 Aug 1.
This study was conducted to assess the effect of different composite materials on the cuspal deflection of premolars restored with bulk placement of resin composite in comparison to horizontal incremental placement and modified tangential incremental placement.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the cuspal deflection caused by different composite materials when different insertion techniques were used.
Two different composite materials were used that is Tetric N Ceram (Ivoclar Vivadent marketing, India) and SonicFill (Kerr Sybron Dental). Forty standardized Mesio-Occluso-Distal (MOD) preparations were prepared on maxillary first premolars. Each group was divided according to composite insertion technique (n=10), as follows: Group I - bulk insertion using Tetric N Ceram, Group II - Horizontal incremental insertion technique using Tetric N Ceram, Group III- Modified tangential incremental technique using Tetric N Ceram, and Group IV- bulk insertion using SonicFill. Preparations were acid-etched, and bonded with adhesive resin to provide micro mechanical attachment before restoration using a uniform etching and bonding protocol in all the groups. All groups received the same total photo-polymerization time. Cuspal deflection was measured during the restorative procedure using customized digital micrometer assembly. One-way ANOVA test was applied for the analysis of significant difference between the groups, p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
The average cuspal deflections for the different groups were as follows: Group I 0.045±0.018, Group II 0.029±0.009, Group III 0.018±0.005 and Group IV 0.017±0.004. The intergroup comparison revealed statistically significant difference.
A measurable amount of cuspal deflection was present in all the four studied groups. In general, bulkfill restoration technique with conventional composite showed significantly highest cusp deflection. There were no significant differences in cuspal deflection among sonicFill and modified tangential incremental insertion techniques.
本研究旨在评估与水平分层放置和改良切线分层放置相比,不同复合材料在采用树脂复合材料整体放置修复前磨牙时对牙尖偏斜的影响。
本研究的目的是评估使用不同插入技术时不同复合材料引起的牙尖偏斜。
使用了两种不同的复合材料,即Tetric N Ceram(义获嘉伟瓦登特公司销售,印度)和SonicFill(登士柏西诺德公司)。在上颌第一前磨牙上制备了40个标准化的近中-牙合-远中(MOD)洞型。根据复合材料插入技术将每组分为(n = 10)如下:第一组 - 使用Tetric N Ceram整体插入,第二组 - 使用Tetric N Ceram水平分层插入技术,第三组 - 使用Tetric N Ceram改良切线分层技术,第四组 - 使用SonicFill整体插入。在所有组中,制备洞型进行酸蚀,并使用均匀的蚀刻和粘结方案在修复前用粘结树脂粘结以提供微机械固位。所有组接受相同的总光聚合时间。在修复过程中使用定制的数字千分尺组件测量牙尖偏斜。应用单因素方差分析来分析组间的显著差异,p值小于0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
不同组的平均牙尖偏斜如下:第一组0.045±0.018,第二组0.029±0.009,第三组0.018±0.005,第四组0.017±0.004。组间比较显示有统计学显著差异。
在所有四个研究组中均存在可测量的牙尖偏斜量。一般来说,使用传统复合材料的整体填充修复技术显示出显著最高的牙尖偏斜。SonicFill和改良切线分层插入技术之间在牙尖偏斜方面没有显著差异。