Faculty of Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ankara University, Ankara, Yenimahalle, Turkey.
Faculty of Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turkey.
PeerJ. 2023 Mar 28;11:e14825. doi: 10.7717/peerj.14825. eCollection 2023.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) internal adaptation (IA) and fracture resistance (FR) of compomer and glass ionomers applied after conventional caries removal to sound dentin (CCRSD) and selective caries removal to firm dentin (SCRFD) in .
Thirty extracted primary molars were randomly assigned to three main groups ( = 10) as glass hybrid restorative (GHR) (Equia Forte HT), conventional glass ionomer (CGIR) (Voco Ionofil Molar) and compomer (Dyract XP). Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups according to caries removal technique as CCRSD ( = 5) and SCRFD ( = 5). The restoration procedures were completed after caries removal (CCRSD or SCRFD) in all samples. Then, specimens were subjected to IA and FR tests. Data were analyzed with Student's t, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal Wallis-H tests. The correlation between IA and FR results was analyzed with a Pearson test. The statistical significance level was considered as 5%.
While CCRSD showed superior IA results than SCRFD for all restorative materials ( < 0.05), no statistical difference was found between CCRSD and SCRFD in FR assessment ( > 0.05). In CCRSD, compomer showed superior results for IA and FR than glass ionomers ( < 0.05). In SCRFD, it was found no significant difference between the restoratives for IA ( > 0.05). However, compomer showed superior FR results than glass ionomers ( < 0.05). There was moderate negative correlation between internal voids and FR without statistically significant difference (r = -0.333, = 0.072).
Despite the advantages of SCRFD, it was found to be less superior than CCRSD in IA assessment. Therefore, when SCRFD is preferred, a peripheral seal should be provided for ideal restorative treatment. On the other hand, compomer mostly showed superior results compared to others.
本研究旨在评估在常规龋损去除至健康牙本质（CCRSD）和选择性龋损去除至硬牙本质（SCRFD）后应用于健康牙本质的复合树脂和玻璃离子体的三维（3D）内部适应（IA）和抗断裂性能（FR）。
将 30 颗拔除的乳磨牙随机分为三组（每组 10 颗）：玻璃混合修复体（GHR）（Equia Forte HT）、传统玻璃离子体（CGIR）（Voco Ionofil Molar）和复合树脂（Dyract XP）。每组根据龋损去除技术随机分为 CCRSD（n=5）和 SCRFD（n=5）亚组。所有样本在龋损去除后（CCRSD 或 SCRFD）完成修复程序。然后，对标本进行 IA 和 FR 测试。采用 Student's t 检验、单因素方差分析和 Kruskal Wallis-H 检验对数据进行分析。采用 Pearson 检验分析 IA 和 FR 结果之间的相关性。统计显著性水平设为 5%。
在所有修复材料中，CCRSD 组的 IA 结果优于 SCRFD 组（<0.05），但在 FR 评估中，CCRSD 组和 SCRFD 组之间无统计学差异（>0.05）。在 CCRSD 组中，复合树脂的 IA 和 FR 结果均优于玻璃离子体（<0.05）。在 SCRFD 组中，各修复体之间的 IA 无显著差异（>0.05）。然而，复合树脂的 FR 结果优于玻璃离子体（<0.05）。IA 内空隙与 FR 之间存在中度负相关，但无统计学意义（r=-0.333，=0.072）。
尽管 SCRFD 有优势，但在 IA 评估方面，其效果不如 CCRSD。因此，当选择 SCRFD 时，应提供周边密封以实现理想的修复治疗。另一方面，复合树脂的结果大多优于其他材料。
