KU Leuven BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven & Dentistry University Hospitals Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Environment and Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Kapucijnenvoer 35, 3000 Leuven, Belgium; Unit Environmental Hygiene and Human Biological Monitoring, Department of Health Protection, National Health Laboratory (LNS), Dudelange, Luxembourg.
Dent Mater. 2020 Oct;36(10):1275-1281. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.06.001. Epub 2020 Jul 4.
Indirect dental restorations produced by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) are relatively new in daily dental practice. The aim of the present study was to compare the monomer release between direct composite restorations and indirect CAD/CAM produced restorations (composite, ceramic and hybrid).
Identical crown restorations were prepared from three indirect materials (Cerasmart, Vitablocs Mark II and Vita Enamic) and one composite material (Clearfil AP-X). For each restoration, eight crown restorations were luted onto tooth samples and immersed into 2.5mL of an aqueous extraction solvent. Additionally, three nonluted crowns of each restoration type were also immersed in the extraction solvent, and served as controls. Every week, the extraction solvent was collected and refreshed, during a period of 8 weeks. The released monomers were quantified using ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.
Indirect restorations release significantly lower quantities of residual monomers than direct restorations, and the monomers released by the luted indirect restorations are mainly derived from the composite material used for cementation. The quantity of monomers released by direct restorations greatly depended on the time of light polymerization.
In terms of monomer release, indirect restorations are a good alternative to direct restorations to limit patient exposure to residual monomers. It is important to ideally design the fit of indirect restoration so that the cement layer is as thin as possible and the monomer release from this cement layer remains as low as possible.
计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造(CAD/CAM)制作的间接牙科修复体在日常牙科实践中相对较新。本研究的目的是比较直接复合修复体和间接 CAD/CAM 制作的修复体(复合、陶瓷和混合)之间的单体释放情况。
从三种间接材料(Cerasmart、Vitablocs Mark II 和 Vita Enamic)和一种复合材料(Clearfil AP-X)中制备相同的牙冠修复体。对于每个修复体,将八个牙冠修复体粘接到牙样本上,并浸入 2.5 毫升水性提取溶剂中。此外,每种修复类型的三个未粘固的牙冠也浸入提取溶剂中作为对照。在 8 周的时间内,每周收集并更新提取溶剂。使用超高效液相色谱-串联质谱法定量释放的单体。
间接修复体释放的残留单体数量明显低于直接修复体,而粘固的间接修复体释放的单体主要来自用于粘固的复合材料。直接修复体释放的单体数量主要取决于光聚合时间。
就单体释放而言,间接修复体是替代直接修复体以限制患者接触残留单体的良好选择。理想情况下,设计间接修复体的配合,使粘结层尽可能薄,并且该粘结层释放的单体尽可能低,这一点非常重要。