Jain Khushboo, Katge Farhin, Poojari Manohar, Shetty Shilpa, Patil Devendra, Ghadge Sanjana
Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, TPCT's Terna Dental College, Navi Mumbai 400706, India.
Int J Dent. 2022 Mar 11;2022:7932930. doi: 10.1155/2022/7932930. eCollection 2022.
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a 'p' value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant ( < 0.05). Microleakage was evident in all the materials tested. The lowest microleakage was seen with bioactive restorative material.
这项体外研究旨在评估和比较生物活性材料、有机硅氧烷陶瓷材料和传统玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）修复材料在乳磨牙中的微渗漏情况。在本研究中，在75颗非龋性拔除的乳磨牙颊面制备V类洞。然后根据分组情况对牙齿进行修复。A组、B组和C组分别使用生物活性修复材料、有机硅氧烷陶瓷修复材料和传统GIC修复材料进行修复。然后对牙齿进行热循环处理，并通过染料渗透进行微渗漏分析。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较微渗漏评分的差异。随后使用Dunn检验进行多重两两比较。所有测试均使用<0.05的“p”值进行。显示微渗漏评分为0（即无染料渗透）的样本百分比在A组最高（56%），其次是C组（44%）和B组（12%）。统计分析显示B组微渗漏最高，具有统计学意义（<0.05）。在所有测试材料中均观察到微渗漏。生物活性修复材料的微渗漏最低。
