Benetti Ana Raquel, Michou Stavroula, Larsen Liselotte, Peutzfeldt Anne, Pallesen Ulla, van Dijken Jan Willem Viator
Department of Odontology, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dental School, Faculty of Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Biomater Investig Dent. 2019 Dec 12;6(1):90-98. doi: 10.1080/26415275.2019.1696202. eCollection 2019.
Adhesion and marginal adaptation of a claimed bioactive restorative material (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative) to human teeth were compared with those of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji II LC) and a control resin composite (Ceram X Mono). Shear bond strength and marginal adaptation to enamel and dentine were assessed after no pretreatment of the hard tissues or after etching with phosphoric acid (ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative and Ceram X Mono) or polyacrylic acid (Fuji II LC). For ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative, the effect of applying a self-etch adhesive (Xeno Select, Dentsply Sirona) was also investigated. Data were analyzed using non-parametric tests ( = 0.05). Bond strength and marginal adaptation in enamel and dentine were significantly different among the investigated materials (<.05). Due to loss of restorations, it was not possible to measure bond strength of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative if no pretreatment was performed or if dentine was etched; however, use of the self-etch adhesive resulted in similar bond strength as Ceram X Mono. Etching improved adhesion of Fuji II LC to enamel and dentine. Regarding marginal adaptation, ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative showed the highest wall-to-wall contraction to enamel in all pretreatment groups and the overall highest wall-to-wall contraction to dentine after etching. Due to loss of restorations, no marginal assessment was possible on cavities with margins in dentine when no pretreatment was used. The use of a self-etch adhesive with ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative resulted in similar adaptation to dentine compared to the other materials. The self-adhesive property of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative is nonexistent.
将一种声称具有生物活性的修复材料(ACTIVA生物活性修复材料)与人类牙齿的粘结及边缘适应性,与树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(Fuji II LC)和对照树脂复合材料(Ceram X Mono)进行了比较。在硬组织未进行预处理或用磷酸(ACTIVA生物活性修复材料和Ceram X Mono)或聚丙烯酸(Fuji II LC)蚀刻后,评估剪切粘结强度以及对釉质和牙本质的边缘适应性。对于ACTIVA生物活性修复材料,还研究了应用自酸蚀粘结剂(Xeno Select,登士柏西诺德)的效果。使用非参数检验分析数据(α = 0.05)。在所研究的材料中,釉质和牙本质中的粘结强度和边缘适应性存在显著差异(P <.05)。由于修复体脱落,如果未进行预处理或蚀刻牙本质,则无法测量ACTIVA生物活性修复材料的粘结强度;然而,使用自酸蚀粘结剂可产生与Ceram X Mono相似的粘结强度。蚀刻可改善Fuji II LC对釉质和牙本质的粘结。关于边缘适应性,在所有预处理组中,ACTIVA生物活性修复材料对釉质的壁间收缩率最高,蚀刻后对牙本质的壁间收缩率总体最高。由于修复体脱落,当未使用预处理时,无法对边缘位于牙本质的窝洞进行边缘评估。与其他材料相比,ACTIVA生物活性修复材料使用自酸蚀粘结剂后对牙本质的适应性相似。ACTIVA生物活性修复材料不存在自粘结性能。