Mashyakhy M, Jabali A, Karale R, Parthiban G, Sajeev S, Bhandi S
Department of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, KLE Society's Institute of Dental Science, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Niger J Clin Pract. 2020 Mar;23(3):349-354. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_424_19.
To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of Zirconomer and bulk fill posterior restorative material (Surefil SDR) in nonendodontically and endodontically treated teeth.
The sample consisted of 52 caries-free extracted human premolars which were individually mounted in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) ring filled with acrylic resin up to 1.0 mm below the cementoenamel junction. The teeth were then divided into four groups according to the restorative material used as group I: Zirconomer + Operative only, Group II: Zirconomer + Endodontic treatment, Group III: SDR + Operative, and Group IV: SDR + Endodontic treatment. Fracture strength was tested using a universal testing machine and was expressed in Newtons. The marginal gap was measured at its maximum using a scanning electron microscope and expressed in micrometers. One-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test was used to compare the mean fracture resistance (N) and marginal adaptation (μm) between the four groups. Statistical significance was determined at α = 0.05.
Group 3 exhibited significantly highest mean fracture resistance than Group 1 (P < 0.001), Group 2 (P < 0.001), and Group 4 (P < 0.001). Group 4 had significantly higher mean fracture resistance than Group 1 (P = 0.008) and Group 2 (P < 0.001). Group 1 exhibited significantly highest mean marginal gap than Group 3 (P < 0.001) and Group 4 (P < 0.001). Group 2 had a significantly higher mean marginal gap than Group 3 (P < 0.001) and Group 4 (P < 0.001).
The fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of Zirconomer are significantly lower than Surefil SDR in both nonendodontically and endodontically treated teeth.
评估并比较在未经牙髓治疗和经过牙髓治疗的牙齿中，锆基陶瓷和大块充填后牙修复材料（Surefil SDR）的抗折强度和边缘适应性。
样本包括52颗无龋的拔除人类前磨牙，将其分别安装在聚氯乙烯（PVC）环中，并用丙烯酸树脂填充至牙骨质釉质界下方1.0毫米处。然后根据使用的修复材料将牙齿分为四组：第一组：锆基陶瓷+仅进行手术治疗，第二组：锆基陶瓷+牙髓治疗，第三组：Surefil SDR+手术治疗，第四组：Surefil SDR+牙髓治疗。使用万能试验机测试抗折强度，单位为牛顿。使用扫描电子显微镜在最大处测量边缘间隙，单位为微米。采用单因素方差分析，随后进行Tukey事后检验，以比较四组之间的平均抗折强度（牛顿）和边缘适应性（微米）。统计学显著性以α=0.05确定。
第三组的平均抗折强度显著高于第一组（P<0.001）、第二组（P<0.001）和第四组（P<0.001）。第四组的平均抗折强度显著高于第一组（P=0.008）和第二组（P<0.001）。第一组的平均边缘间隙显著高于第三组（P<0.001）和第四组（P<0.001）。第二组的平均边缘间隙显著高于第三组（P<0.001）和第四组（P<0.001）。
在未经牙髓治疗和经过牙髓治疗的牙齿中，锆基陶瓷的抗折强度和边缘适应性均显著低于Surefil SDR。
