Ibrahim Maria Salem, AlKhalefah Ahmed Saleh, Alsaghirat Abdullah Ali, Alburayh Read Ahmed, Alabdullah Nezar Ahmed
Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 34212, Saudi Arabia.
College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam 31441, Saudi Arabia.
Materials (Basel). 2023 Oct 13;16(20):6674. doi: 10.3390/ma16206674.
Several advantages, including improved aesthetics and conservative cavity preparation, made resin-based composite (RBC) a popular restorative material. However, several limitations come with RBC restorations such as the necessity for proper isolation of the tooth and an incremental layering for the material due to the limitations of the depth of cure. Despite these advantages and limitations, the usage of these restorative materials is increasingly being expanded due to the advancement made since their introduction. To overcome some of the limitations, several types of RBC restorations were developed.
Four different RBC materials used for class II restorations in primary and permanent teeth were compared: Z350 XT Filtek™ Universal Restorative (ZXT), Filtek™ Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative (FBF), Beautifil-Bulk Flowable (BBF) and Tetric™ N-Flow (TNF). Flexure strength, elastic modulus, surface roughness, microhardness and microleakage were assessed using standard methods or previously published protocols. The data and differences between the groups were analyzed using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's multiple comparisons, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) tests.
The study found that BBF (86.24 ± 7.41 MPa) and ZXT (64.45 ± 11.52 MPa) had higher flexural strength than FBF (50.89 ± 8.44 MPa) and TNF (50.67 ± 9.40 MPa), while both exhibited the highest values of surface roughness. Elastic modulus was the highest with BBF, which was not statistically significant from FBF or ZXT ( > 0.05). ZXT (109.7 ± 7.83 VH) exhibited the highest value of microhardness, which was statistically significant from the other three materials ( < 0.0001). Microleakage was assessed after thermocycling for 20,000 cycles to simulate two years in the mouth. FBF (70%) exhibited the most resistance to microleakage.
Different types of RBC restorations exhibit different characteristics. The clinician needs to choose the most appropriate restorative material based on different clinical scenarios.
树脂基复合材料（RBC）具有多种优势，包括美观性提升和保守的窝洞预备，使其成为一种受欢迎的修复材料。然而，RBC修复存在一些局限性，例如需要对牙齿进行适当隔离，并且由于固化深度的限制，材料需要分层堆积。尽管有这些优缺点，但自引入以来，随着技术的进步，这些修复材料的使用范围正在不断扩大。为了克服一些局限性，人们开发了几种类型的RBC修复材料。
比较了四种用于乳牙和恒牙II类修复的不同RBC材料：Z350 XT Filtek™通用修复材料（ZXT）、Filtek™大块充填可流动修复材料（FBF）、Beautifil-大块可流动材料（BBF）和Tetric™ N-流动材料（TNF）。使用标准方法或先前发表的方案评估弯曲强度、弹性模量、表面粗糙度、显微硬度和微渗漏。使用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）、Tukey多重比较、Kruskal-Wallis检验和Wilcoxon秩和（Mann-Whitney）检验分析组间数据和差异。
研究发现，BBF（86.24±7.41MPa）和ZXT（64.45±11.52MPa）的弯曲强度高于FBF（50.89±8.44MPa）和TNF（50.67±9.40MPa），而两者的表面粗糙度值最高。BBF的弹性模量最高，与FBF或ZXT相比无统计学差异（>0.05）。ZXT（109.7±7.83VH）的显微硬度值最高，与其他三种材料相比有统计学差异（<0.0001）。热循环20000次以模拟口腔两年使用后评估微渗漏。FBF（70%）对微渗漏的抵抗力最强。
不同类型的RBC修复材料表现出不同的特性。临床医生需要根据不同的临床情况选择最合适的修复材料。
