Andrade Adrielle Caroline Moreira, Trennepohl Amanda Acioli, Moecke Sabrina Elise, Borges Alessandra Bühler, Torres Carlos Rocha Gomes
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, Sao Paulo State University - UNESP, Av. Eng. Francisco Jose Longo, 777, Sao Jose dos Campos, São Paulo, Zip code: 12245-000, Brazil.
Clin Oral Investig. 2022 Jul;26(7):4847-4856. doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04452-7. Epub 2022 Mar 21.
To compare the effect of the injection of viscosity modulated resin composites versus hand application without modulation, on the internal adaptation of different material to the gingival wall of class II preparations.
Class II cavities were created on mesial and distal surfaces of 60 extracted human molars, resulting on 120 tooth preparations (n = 120). The preparations were restored with four resin composites: VIS-VisCalor (Voco); GRA-GrandioSO (Voco); FIL-Filtek One Bulk Fill (3 M/ESPE); and SON-SonicFill (Kerr). Each composite was applied by two different techniques: by hand (H) or assisted (A). For the hand technique, the material was placed into the preparation using a spatula. For the assisted technique, the resin composite was heated up to 65 °C (for VIS, GRA, and FIL) or sonicated (for SON) and injected into the preparation. After the restorative procedures, the teeth were completely demineralized to allow the restoration removal. The total area of the gingival wall and the area occupied by interfacial defects of adaptation (TDA) were measured by optical microscopy and digital software. The percentage of the area occupied by the defects (%TDA) in relation to the total area was calculated. The data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests.
Significant differences were observed for the application technique (p = 0.0403) and for the materials (p = 0.0184), as well for the interaction between them (p = 0.0452). The mean (standard deviation) of %TDA and results of Tukey test for the interaction were as follows: SON/H - 1.04(0.75)a; VIS/A - 2.01(0.92)a; VIS/H - 3.62(0.99)b; GRA/A - 6.23(3.32)b; FIL/H - 7.45(3.31)bc; GRA/H - 9.21(4.53)c; SON/A - 11.26(4.04)a; FIL/A - 17.89(5.08)d.
The injection of heated resin composites improves the adaptation to the walls in relation to the hand technique for VisCalor and GrandioSO but worsens for Filtek One. Sonic vibration increases the number of interfacial defects for SonicFill.
The physical modulation of the resin composite viscosity can improve or worsen the material adaptation to the walls of class II restoration. It had a positive impact for VisCalor and GrandioSO but a negative for Filtek One and SonicFill.
比较注射经粘度调制的树脂复合材料与未经调制手工操作，对不同材料与II类洞型龈壁的内部适应性的影响。
在60颗拔除的人磨牙的近中面和远中面制备II类洞型，共得到120个牙齿洞型（n = 120）。用四种树脂复合材料修复这些洞型：VIS-VisCalor（Voco公司）；GRA-GrandioSO（Voco公司）；FIL-Filtek One Bulk Fill（3M/ESPE公司）；SON-SonicFill（Kerr公司）。每种复合材料通过两种不同技术应用：手工操作（H）或辅助操作（A）。对于手工操作技术，使用刮匙将材料放入洞型中。对于辅助操作技术，将树脂复合材料加热至65°C（对于VIS、GRA和FIL）或进行超声处理（对于SON），然后注入洞型中。修复操作完成后，将牙齿完全脱矿以去除修复体。通过光学显微镜和数字软件测量龈壁的总面积以及适应性界面缺陷所占面积（TDA）。计算缺陷所占面积相对于总面积的百分比（%TDA）。数据通过双向方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析。
在应用技术（p = 0.0403）、材料（p = 0.0184）以及它们之间的相互作用（p = 0.0452）方面观察到显著差异。%TDA的平均值（标准差）以及相互作用的Tukey检验结果如下：SON/H - 1.04(0.75)a；VIS/A - 2.01(0.92)a；VIS/H - 3.62(0.99)b；GRA/A - 6.23(3.32)b；FIL/H - 7.45(3.31)bc；GRA/H - 9.21(4.53)c；SON/A - 11.26(4.04)a；FIL/A - 17.89(5.08)d。
对于VisCalor和GrandioSO，注射加热后的树脂复合材料相对于手工操作技术可改善与洞壁的适应性，但对于Filtek One则变差。超声振动会增加SonicFill界面缺陷的数量。
树脂复合材料粘度的物理调制可改善或恶化材料与II类修复洞壁的适应性。对VisCalor和GrandioSO有积极影响，但对Filtek One和SonicFill有负面影响。
