Raghip Ahmad Gm, Comisi John C, Hamama Hamdi H, Mahmoud Salah H
Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Horus University, New-Damietta, Egypt.
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Medical University of South Carolina, James B Edwards College of Dental Medicine. Charleston, South Carolina, USA,
Am J Dent. 2023 Feb;36(1):3-7.
To evaluate the bonding interface and the remineralization potential of a bioactive restorative material on demineralized dentin compared to a conventional bulk-fill resin composite restoration.
Twelve caries-free human molars were used in this study. Specimens were randomly divided into two groups according to the type of restorative material used (n=12); an injectable resin-modified glass-ionomer restorative [Activa BioActive-Restorative (ABR) ] and a bulk-fill composite [3M Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative, (BFC) ]. Each restored specimen was sectioned in two semi-equal halves along the long axis of the teeth perpendicular to the resin dentin interface with a water-cooled diamond disk at low speed. The restoration-dentin interfaces were scanned under SEM to observe micromorphological analysis; then an elemental analysis of the interface was performed using an energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy.
Quantitative data were described using median (minimum and maximum) after testing normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the BFC and ABR. Higher mean values of Ca were identified and related to the ABR material, which provided more Ca ions than BFC. The comparison of Ca and P between materials showed a significant difference in the amount of Ca provided by ABR versus BFC. ABR restorations presented a thicker, and superior remineralization interface compared to the bulk-fill resin composite.
Activa BioActive Restorative restorations presented a thicker and superior remineralization interface compared to the bulk-fill resin composite.
与传统的大块充填树脂复合材料修复体相比,评估一种生物活性修复材料在脱矿牙本质上的粘结界面和再矿化潜力。
本研究使用了12颗无龋的人类磨牙。根据所使用的修复材料类型将标本随机分为两组(n = 12);一种可注射的树脂改性玻璃离子修复材料[Activa生物活性修复材料(ABR)]和一种大块充填复合材料[3M Filtek One大块充填修复材料(BFC)]。每个修复后的标本用低速水冷金刚石圆盘沿牙齿的长轴垂直于树脂牙本质界面切成两个大致相等的半块。在扫描电子显微镜下观察修复体与牙本质的界面,进行微观形态分析;然后使用能量色散X射线(EDX)光谱对界面进行元素分析。
使用Shapiro-Wilk检验测试正态性后,用中位数(最小值和最大值)描述定量数据。使用Mann-Whitney U检验比较BFC和ABR。确定了较高的钙平均值,且与ABR材料有关,该材料提供的钙离子比BFC更多。材料之间钙和磷的比较显示,ABR与BFC提供的钙量存在显著差异。与大块充填树脂复合材料相比,ABR修复体呈现出更厚且更好的再矿化界面。
与大块充填树脂复合材料相比,Activa生物活性修复体呈现出更厚且更好的再矿化界面。