Torres Fernanda Ferrari Esteves, Guerreiro-Tanomaru Juliane Maria, Chavez-Andrade Gisselle Moraima, Pinto Jader Camilo, Berbert Fábio Luiz Camargo Villela, Tanomaru-Filho Mario
Department of Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Dentistry, Araraquara, SP, Brazil.
Restor Dent Endod. 2020 Jan 8;45(2):e11. doi: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e11. eCollection 2020 May.
This study compared the flow and filling of several retrograde filling materials using new different test models.
Glass plates were manufactured with a central cavity and 4 grooves in the horizontal and vertical directions. Grooves with the dimensions used in the previous study (1 × 1 × 2 mm; length, width, and height respectively) were compared with grooves measuring 1 × 1 × 1 and 1 × 2 × 1 mm. Biodentine, intermediate restorative material (IRM), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) were evaluated. Each material was placed in the central cavity, and then another glass plate and a metal weight were placed over the cement. The glass plate/material set was scanned using micro-computed tomography. Flow was calculated by linear measurements in the grooves. Central filling was calculated in the central cavity (mm) and lateral filling was measured up to 2 mm from the central cavity.
Biodentine presented the least flow and better filling than IRM when evaluated in the 1 × 1 × 2 model. In a comparison of the test models, MTA had the most flow in the 1 × 1 × 2 model. All materials had lower lateral filling when the 1 × 1 × 2 model was used.
Flow and filling were affected by the size of the test models. Higher grooves and materials with greater flow resulted in lower filling capacity. The test model measuring 1 × 1 × 2 mm showed a better ability to differentiate among the materials.
本研究使用新的不同测试模型比较了几种逆行充填材料的流动性和充填情况。
制作带有中心腔以及水平和垂直方向4条沟槽的玻璃板。将先前研究中使用尺寸(分别为1×1×2毫米;长、宽、高)的沟槽与尺寸为1×1×1毫米和1×2×1毫米的沟槽进行比较。对生物活性玻璃陶瓷(Biodentine)、中间修复材料(IRM)和三氧化矿物凝聚体(MTA)进行评估。将每种材料置于中心腔内,然后在粘结剂上方放置另一块玻璃板和一个金属重物。使用微型计算机断层扫描对玻璃板/材料组合进行扫描。通过测量沟槽内的线性距离计算流动性。计算中心腔内的中心充填量(毫米),并测量距中心腔2毫米范围内的侧向充填量。
在1×1×2模型中评估时,生物活性玻璃陶瓷的流动性最小,且充填情况优于中间修复材料。在测试模型的比较中,三氧化矿物凝聚体在1×1×2模型中的流动性最大。当使用1×1×2模型时,所有材料的侧向充填量均较低。
流动性和充填情况受测试模型尺寸的影响。较高的沟槽和流动性较大的材料导致较低的充填能力。尺寸为1×1×2毫米的测试模型显示出更好的区分材料的能力。