Suppr超能文献

不同修复材料与三氧化矿物凝聚体和生物陶瓷的剪切粘结强度。

Shear bond strength of different restorative materials to mineral trioxide aggregate and Biodentine.

作者信息

Tulumbaci Fatih, Almaz Merve Erkmen, Arikan Volkan, Mutluay Merve Safa

机构信息

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey.

出版信息

J Conserv Dent. 2017 Sep-Oct;20(5):292-296. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_97_17.

Abstract

SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine (calcium silicate-based materials) have great importance in dentistry. There is no study comparing the bond strength of Biodentine and MTA for composite, compomer, and compomer or resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC). Although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; in this study, MTA has shown better shear bond strength (SBS) to restorative materials.

AIM

Recently, a variety of calcium silicate-based materials are often used for pulp capping, perforation repair, and endodontic therapies. After those treatment procedures, teeth are commonly restored with composite resin, (RMGIC materials in pediatric dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SBS of composite resin (Filtek™ Z250; 3M ESPE, USA), compomer (Dyract XP; LD Caulk/Dentsply, USA), and resin-modified glass ionomer (Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap; 3M ESPE, USA) to white MTA and Biodentine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety acrylic cylindrical blocks were prepared and divided into two groups ( = 45). The acrylic blocks were randomly allocated into 3 subgroups; Group-1A: MTA + composite (Filtek™ Z250), Group-1B: MTA + compomer (Dyract XP), Group-1C: MTA + RMGIC (Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap), Group-2A: Biodentine + composite, Group-2B: Biodentine + compomer, Group-2C: Biodentine + RMGIC. The specimens were mounted in Universal Testing Machine. A crosshead speed 1 mm/min was applied to each specimen using a knife-edge blade until the bond between the MTA/Biodentine and restorative material failed. Failure modes of each group were evaluated under polarized light microscope at ×40 magnification.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between MTA + Composite resin with MTA + Compomer; and MTA + RMGIC with Biodentine + RMGIC ( > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between other groups ( < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study displayed that although many advantages of Biodentine over MTA; MTA has shown better SBS to compomer and composite resin materials than Biodentine.

摘要

研究意义

三氧化矿物凝聚体(MTA)和生物陶瓷(基于硅酸钙的材料)在牙科领域具有重要意义。目前尚无研究比较生物陶瓷和MTA与复合树脂、复合体以及复合树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC)之间的粘结强度。尽管生物陶瓷相对于MTA有许多优势,但在本研究中,MTA对修复材料显示出更好的剪切粘结强度(SBS)。

目的

近年来,多种基于硅酸钙的材料常用于牙髓盖髓、穿孔修复和根管治疗。在这些治疗程序之后,牙齿通常用复合树脂进行修复(在儿童牙科中使用RMGIC材料)。本研究的目的是评估复合树脂(Filtek™ Z250;美国3M ESPE公司)、复合体(Dyract XP;美国LD Caulk/登士柏公司)以及复合树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap;美国3M ESPE公司)与白色MTA和生物陶瓷之间的SBS。

材料与方法

制备90个丙烯酸圆柱块并分为两组(每组n = 45)。将丙烯酸块随机分为3个亚组;第1A组:MTA + 复合树脂(Filtek™ Z250),第1B组:MTA + 复合体(Dyract XP),第1C组:MTA + RMGIC(Photac-Fil Quick Aplicap),第2A组:生物陶瓷 + 复合树脂,第2B组:生物陶瓷 + 复合体,第2C组:生物陶瓷 + RMGIC。将标本安装在万能材料试验机上。使用刀口刀片以1 mm/min的十字头速度对每个标本施加力,直到MTA/生物陶瓷与修复材料之间的粘结失效。在偏振光显微镜下以×40放大倍数评估每组的失效模式。

结果

MTA + 复合树脂与MTA + 复合体之间;以及MTA + RMGIC与生物陶瓷 + RMGIC之间无统计学显著差异(P > 0.05)。其他组之间存在统计学显著差异(P < 0.05)。

结论

本研究结果表明,尽管生物陶瓷相对于MTA有许多优势,但MTA对复合体和复合树脂材料显示出比生物陶瓷更好的SBS。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/f272/5767820/b051afb78f38/JCD-20-292-g002.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验