Martins Laís Carvalho, Oliveira Laís Rani Sales, Braga Stella Sueli Lourenço, Soares Carlos José, Versluis Antheunis, Borges Gilberto Antônio, Veríssimo Crisnicaw
J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(5):503-514. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a45180.
To compare shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture load of weakened premolars restored with different conventional and bulk-fill composite resins and restorative techniques.
Fifty premolars received a 4.0 x 3.5mm mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) class II preparation. The lingual and buccal cups were internally weakened. Specimens were restored according to the following 5 groups: Filtek Z350 XT/10 increments; Filtek Z350 XT/8 increments (both 3M Oral Care); Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative + Filtek Z350 XT (both 3M Oral Care); SDR + Spectra Basic (Dentsply Sirona); and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar Vivadent). Cuspal strains were measured using strain gauges (n = 10). After restoration, specimens were submitted to thermal/mechanical cycles and fractured. Post-gel shrinkage of the composites was determined. Additionally, residual shrinkage strains and stresses were analyzed using three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA). The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD (α = 0.05).
One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among composite resins (p < 0.001) for the post-gel shrinkage. Filtek Z350 XT had the highest post-gel shrinkage and no difference was found between Spectra Basic and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill (p = 0.110). The Filtek Z350 XT/10 increments, Filtek Z350 XT/8 increments and Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative/Filtek Z350 XT had statistically significantly higher cuspal deformation values when compared to the SDR/Spectra Basic and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill techniques. 3D-FEA confirmed higher stress levels in the incrementally filled conventional restorations. Fracture loads were not statistically significantly different.
The bulk-fill restoration techniques resulted in less cuspal strain and stress than the incremental technique with conventional composite resin. Fracture resistance was not affected by the restorative techniques.
比较用不同传统和大块充填复合树脂及修复技术修复的削弱前磨牙的收缩应力、尖部应变和断裂载荷。
50颗前磨牙制备4.0×3.5mm近中-咬合-远中(MOD)II类洞型。舌侧和颊侧洞壁进行内部削弱。标本按以下5组进行修复:Filtek Z350 XT/10层充填;Filtek Z350 XT/8层充填(均为3M口腔护理产品);Filtek大块充填可流动修复材料+Filtek Z350 XT(均为3M口腔护理产品);SDR+Spectra Basic(登士柏西诺德);以及Tetric N-Ceram大块充填(义获嘉伟瓦登特)。使用应变片测量尖部应变(n = 10)。修复后,标本进行热/机械循环并断裂。测定复合材料的凝胶后收缩率。此外,使用三维有限元分析(3D-FEA)分析残余收缩应变和应力。数据采用单因素方差分析和Tukey's HSD进行统计学分析(α = 0.05)。
单因素方差分析显示,复合材料树脂之间的凝胶后收缩率存在统计学显著差异(p < 0.001)。Filtek Z350 XT的凝胶后收缩率最高,Spectra Basic和Tetric N-Ceram大块充填之间未发现差异(p = 0.110)。与SDR/Spectra Basic和Tetric N-Ceram大块充填技术相比,Filtek Z350 XT/10层充填、Filtek Z350 XT/8层充填以及Filtek大块充填可流动修复材料/Filtek Z350 XT的尖部变形值在统计学上显著更高。3D-FEA证实,逐层充填的传统修复体中的应力水平更高。断裂载荷在统计学上无显著差异。
与传统复合树脂的逐层技术相比,大块充填修复技术导致的尖部应变和应力更小。修复技术不影响抗折性。