Suppr超能文献

Activa™生物活性修复材料™与大块充填复合树脂之间的剪切粘结强度和微渗漏的比较——一项体外研究

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites-An In Vitro Study.

作者信息

Martínez-Sabio Laura, Peñate Lissethe, Arregui María, Veloso Duran Ana, Blanco José Raúl, Guinot Francisco

机构信息

Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, 08195 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.

Restorative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, 08195 Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain.

出版信息

Polymers (Basel). 2023 Jun 27;15(13):2840. doi: 10.3390/polym15132840.

Abstract

Bioactive materials have emerged as a promising alternative to conventional restorative materials as part of more conservative dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage of a new bioactive restorative material, two bulk-fill restorative composites, and a conventional composite at 24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. Three hundred and sixty molars and premolars were divided into four groups: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE Restorative™, Filtek™ Bulk-Fill Restorative Composite, Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill Composite, and G-aenial Composite. The normality of the data was determined with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, then the two-way ANOVA and Fisher's test were used for analyzing SBS data, and the Kruskal-Wallis and DSCF tests were conducted to analyze the microleakage. In the SBS test, there were no statistically significant differences between materials ( = 0.587), and the relation between material and time ( = 0.467), time points showed statistically significant differences ( = 0.016). As for the microleakage, statistically significant differences were found for all three time periods ( < 0.05), showing the conventional composite to have the lowest microleakage, followed by the bioactive material, and lastly the two bulk-fill composites. In conclusion, the new bioactive material has similar evaluated properties to bulk-fill composites (bond strength) and conventional composites (bond strength and microleakage) and can be used as an alternative restorative material.

摘要

作为更保守牙科治疗的一部分,生物活性材料已成为传统修复材料的一种有前景的替代品。本研究的目的是评估和比较一种新型生物活性修复材料、两种大块充填修复复合材料和一种传统复合材料在24小时、4周和8周时的剪切粘结强度(SBS)和微渗漏情况。360颗磨牙和前磨牙被分为四组:ACTIVA™生物活性修复材料™、Filtek™大块充填修复复合材料、Tetric N-Ceram大块充填复合材料和G-aenial复合材料。用Kolmogorov-Smirnov检验确定数据的正态性,然后用双向方差分析和Fisher检验分析SBS数据,用Kruskal-Wallis和DSCF检验分析微渗漏情况。在SBS测试中,材料之间(P = 0.587)以及材料与时间之间的关系(P = 0.467)无统计学显著差异,时间点显示有统计学显著差异(P = 0.016)。至于微渗漏,在所有三个时间段均发现有统计学显著差异(P < 0.05),显示传统复合材料的微渗漏最低,其次是生物活性材料,最后是两种大块充填复合材料。总之,这种新型生物活性材料在评估性能方面与大块充填复合材料(粘结强度)和传统复合材料(粘结强度和微渗漏)相似,可作为一种替代修复材料使用。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/aa4d/10346547/bc36ac1cc43a/polymers-15-02840-g001.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