de Los Angeles Moyaho-Bernal María, Contreras-Bulnes Rosalía, Rodríguez-Vilchis Laura Emma, Rubio-Rosas Efraín
Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Facultad de Odontología, Centro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados en Odontología (CIEAO), Jesús Carranza Esq. Paseo Tollocan, Col. Universidad, Toluca, Estado de México, C.P. 50130, México.
Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, Centro Universitario de Vinculación y Transferencia de Tecnología, B, Prolongación de la 24 Sur y Av. San Claudio, Ciudad Universitaria, Col. San Manuel, Puebla, C.P. 72570, México.
Microsc Res Tech. 2018 Aug;81(8):865-871. doi: 10.1002/jemt.23048. Epub 2018 May 8.
Innovators conditioning protocols are emerged in permanent dentin, however for deciduous dentin the information is limited; the aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro diameter of deciduous and permanent dentinal tubules after several conditioning protocols. Eighty dentin samples were distributed in sixteen groups (n = 5 p/g) and dentin surface was conditioned as follow: G1D/G1P acid etching; G2D/G2P, self-etch adhesive; G3D/G3P, G4D/G4P, Er: YAG laser irradiation at 200 mJ-25.5 J/cm and 300 mJ-38.2 J/cm , at 10 Hz under water spray respectively; G5D/G5P, G6D/G6P, G7D/G7P, and G8D/G8P were irradiated under the same energy densities followed phosphoric acid or self-etch adhesive conditioning. The sample dentin of deciduous and permanent teeth was analyzed with scanning electron microscopy and tubule diameter was evaluated by Image Tools Scandium program. Data were subjected to one-way analysis ANOVA to compare among groups with a level of significance at p ≤ .05. For deciduous dentin, diameters were from 1.52 ± 0.32 µm in G3D to 3.88 ± 0.37 µm in G1D; narrowest and widest diameter, respectively (p < .000). While permanent dentin tubules exhibited diameters from 1.16 ± 0.16/1.19 ± 0.12 µm in G7P/G8P to 2.76 ± 0.28 µm in G6P; narrowest and widest diameter, respectively (p < .000). All dentin conditioning protocols produced more open dentin tubules (diameter size) in deciduous dentin than permanent, specific conditioning protocols are required for each tissue (deciduous or permanent dentin), since same protocol produced stronger effects on primary dentin, which is important for dental clinical success in children and adolescents.
创新的预处理方案已应用于恒牙本质，但乳牙本质方面的信息有限；本研究旨在评估几种预处理方案后乳牙和恒牙牙本质小管的体外直径。80个牙本质样本分为16组（每组n = 5），牙本质表面预处理如下：G1D/G1P，酸蚀；G2D/G2P，自酸蚀粘结剂；G3D/G3P、G4D/G4P，分别在喷水条件下以10 Hz频率用200 mJ - 25.5 J/cm²和300 mJ - 38.2 J/cm²的能量进行铒钇铝石榴石激光照射；G5D/G5P、G6D/G6P、G7D/G7P和G8D/G8P在相同能量密度下照射，随后进行磷酸或自酸蚀粘结剂预处理。用扫描电子显微镜分析乳牙和恒牙的样本牙本质，并用Image Tools Scandium程序评估小管直径。数据进行单因素方差分析以比较各组，显著性水平为p≤0.05。对于乳牙本质，直径从G3D组的1.52±0.32 µm到G1D组的3.88±0.37 µm；分别为最窄和最宽直径（p < 0.000）。而恒牙牙本质小管直径从G7P/G8P组的1.16±0.16/1.19±0.12 µm到G6P组的2.76±0.28 µm；分别为最窄和最宽直径（p < 0.000）。所有牙本质预处理方案在乳牙本质中产生的开放牙本质小管（直径大小）比恒牙更多，每种组织（乳牙或恒牙本质）都需要特定的预处理方案，因为相同方案对乳牙本质产生的效果更强，这对儿童和青少年的牙科临床成功很重要。
