Suppr超能文献

不同抗菌消毒剂对不同牙体结构的大块充填型复合树脂粘结微渗漏的影响。

Effects of different antibacterial disinfectants on microleakage of bulk-fill composite bonded to different tooth structures.

机构信息

Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P. O. Box 60169, Riyadh, 11545, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, 02111, USA.

出版信息

BMC Oral Health. 2021 Jul 16;21(1):348. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01717-7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This in-vitro study aimed to investigate the effect of two different antibacterial disinfectants on the microleakage performance of newly developed bulk-fill composite, bonded to different tooth structures.

METHODS

Class V cavities were prepared in 30 sound premolar teeth, with enamel occlusal margins (OM) and dentin cervical margins (CM). Two disinfectants, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) and Listerine Miswak (ListM), were used. Teeth were divided into three groups (n = 10): G1, Control; G2, CHX; and G3, ListM. Disinfectants were applied to the cavity preparation walls after they were etched with 35% phosphoric acid. The Single Bond Universal adhesive system was then used, and teeth were restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill composite. Samples were examined, after thermocycling aging, by stereomicroscopy for the evaluation of marginal dye penetration.

RESULTS

The highest mean microleakage score was reported in the CM of G1 (2.60 ± 1.174), which was significant compared with that of G2 only (p = 0.02). OM in G1 showed no microleakage, with no significant differences found among groups (χ = 1.39, p = 0.50). No significant differences were reported between G2 and G3 (p = 0.45 OM; p = 0.17 CM).

CONCLUSIONS

Cavity pretreatment with CHX is not significantly different to pretreatment with CHX. In contrast, CHX improved the cervical marginal seal as compare to the control group (G1).

摘要

背景

本体外研究旨在探讨两种不同抗菌消毒剂对新型块状填充型复合树脂与不同牙齿结构粘结后微渗漏性能的影响。

方法

在 30 颗健康前磨牙上制备 V 类洞,包括牙釉质咬合缘(OM)和牙本质颈缘(CM)。使用两种消毒剂,2%葡萄糖酸氯己定(CHX)和 Listerine Miswak(ListM)。牙齿分为三组(n=10):G1,对照组;G2,CHX;G3,ListM。在 35%磷酸酸蚀后,将消毒剂应用于窝洞制备壁。然后使用 Single Bond Universal 粘结系统,并用 Filtek One 块状填充型复合树脂进行修复。经过热循环老化后,通过体视显微镜检查样本,评估边缘染料渗透情况。

结果

G1 的 CM 报告的平均微渗漏评分最高(2.60±1.174),与 G2 相比具有显著差异(p=0.02)。G1 的 OM 无微渗漏,组间无显著差异(χ=1.39,p=0.50)。G2 和 G3 之间无显著差异(OM 时 p=0.45;CM 时 p=0.17)。

结论

CHX 预处理与单独使用 CHX 预处理无显著差异。相比之下,CHX 改善了颈缘密封,与对照组(G1)相比。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cf8f/8283936/477449a4a0d7/12903_2021_1717_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验