Mousavinasab Sayed Mostafa, Ghasemi Maede, Yadollahi Mitra
Professor, Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Assistant Professor, Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
J Dent (Tehran). 2018 Jul;15(4):240-249.
The aim of this study was to evaluate enamel and dentinal microleakage in Class II cavities restored with silorane- and methacrylate-based resin composites using specific and nonspecific adhesives.
Thirty-six caries-free human premolars were used. Two Class II cavities were prepared on each tooth. The gingival floor was set at 1 mm above (on the mesial surface) and at 1 mm below (on the distal surface) the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). The samples were randomly divided into four groups, and the cavities were restored with a methacrylate-based composite (Filtek P60) and a silorane-based composite (Filtek P90) with specific and nonspecific adhesives. Microleakage was tested using a standardized dye penetration method. All samples were examined under a stereomicroscope, and microleakage scores were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney-U tests. One sample from each group was examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) to determine the bonding area.
No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the enamel microleakage (P=0.086). There was a significant difference between the groups with regard to dentinal microleakage (P=0.003). No significant reduction in microleakage was observed in groups restored with Filtek P90 composite using its specific adhesive compared to those restored with Filtek P60 composite using its specific adhesive (P=0.626).
The results indicated that the application of methacrylate- and silorane-based composites with specific or nonspecific adhesives had no impact on enamel microleakage, but it affected dentinal microleakage, and specific adhesives showed less microleakage. It seems that a phosphate-methacrylate-based intermediate resin is required to bond dimethacrylate adhesive to silorane-based composites.
本研究旨在评估使用特定和非特定粘合剂的硅氧烷类和甲基丙烯酸酯类树脂复合材料修复Ⅱ类洞时的釉质和牙本质微渗漏情况。
使用36颗无龋的人类前磨牙。每颗牙齿制备两个Ⅱ类洞。龈壁在牙釉质牙骨质界（CEJ）上方1mm（近中面）和下方1mm（远中面）处设定。将样本随机分为四组，使用特定和非特定粘合剂，用甲基丙烯酸酯类复合材料（Filtek P60）和硅氧烷类复合材料（Filtek P90）修复洞。使用标准化染料渗透法测试微渗漏。所有样本在体视显微镜下检查，微渗漏评分使用Kruskal-Wallis和Mann-Whitney-U检验进行统计分析。每组取一个样本在扫描电子显微镜（SEM）下检查以确定粘结面积。
各组间釉质微渗漏方面无显著差异（P = 0.086）。各组间牙本质微渗漏存在显著差异（P = 0.003）。与使用其特定粘合剂的Filtek P60复合材料修复的组相比，使用其特定粘合剂的Filtek P90复合材料修复的组未观察到微渗漏有显著降低（P = 0.626）。
结果表明，使用特定或非特定粘合剂的甲基丙烯酸酯类和硅氧烷类复合材料的应用对釉质微渗漏无影响，但会影响牙本质微渗漏，且特定粘合剂显示出较少的微渗漏。似乎需要一种基于磷酸甲基丙烯酸酯的中间树脂来将二甲基丙烯酸酯粘合剂粘结到硅氧烷类复合材料上。
