Suppr超能文献

不同窝沟封闭剂应用技术下各种窝沟封闭剂的微渗漏及渗透能力

Microleakage and penetration capability of various pit and fissure sealants upon different sealant application techniques.

作者信息

Juntavee Apa, Juntavee Niwut, Chaisuntitrakoon Achara, Millstein Phillip L, Abedian Behrouz

机构信息

Division of Pediatric Dentistry, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

出版信息

J Clin Exp Dent. 2023 Oct 1;15(10):e810-e820. doi: 10.4317/jced.60577. eCollection 2023 Oct.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Sealant application that yields superior marginal adaptation and deeper fissure penetration potentially improves success in preventive and restorative dentistry. This study evaluated the amount of in-vitro microleakage and penetration capabilities of different pit-fissure sealants as the effect of different application techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

160 freshly extracted human sound premolars, assigned as suitable for sealant application, selected and allocated randomly into 8 groups (n=20 teeth/group) and applied with different sealants including Embrace-Wetbond® (E), UltraSeal XT® (U), Clinpro™ (CL), Helioseal® (H), using either conventional (C) or induced application (I). The sealed teeth were thermocycling for 500 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with 30 seconds dwelling time. The tooth was coated with 2 layers of nail varnish, leaving 1 mm around the sealant margin, then immersed in 5% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. Subsequently, 2 pieces were segmented vertically in a buccolingual direction, yielding 4 surfaces/tooth for determination of microleakage and penetration proportion of sealant with polarized light microscopy (PLM) and image-J software. ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons were determined for significant differences (α=0.05). Sealant adaptability was detected using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

RESULTS

The highest microleakage was observed for EC, followed by CLC, HC, UC, CLI, HI, EI, and UI. The highest penetration was seen in UI, followed by HI, CLI, CLC, UC, HC, EI, and EC. ANOVA indicated significant differences in microleakage and penetration on the type of sealant and application method (<0.05). SEM revealed that the I-application method significantly promoted less microleakage and better penetration than the C-application (<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Microleakage and penetration capabilities of sealant are greatly affected by the types of sealant and the method by which the sealant is applied. U-sealant exhibited less microleakage and better penetration capability than others. I-application reduced microleakage, promoting enhanced penetration and adaptation, is the recommended sealant application. Microleakage, penetration, dental sealant.

摘要

背景

能产生卓越边缘适应性和更深窝沟渗入的窝沟封闭剂应用可能会提高预防和修复牙科的成功率。本研究评估了不同窝沟封闭剂在体外的微渗漏量和渗入能力,作为不同应用技术的效果。

材料与方法

选取160颗新鲜拔除的健康人类前磨牙,判定适合进行窝沟封闭剂应用,随机分为8组(每组n = 20颗牙),并使用不同的封闭剂,包括Embrace-Wetbond®(E)、UltraSeal XT®(U)、Clinpro™(CL)、Helioseal®(H),采用传统(C)或诱导应用(I)方式。将封闭后的牙齿在5°C至55°C之间进行500次热循环,每次停留30秒。牙齿涂上两层指甲油,在封闭剂边缘周围留出1毫米,然后浸入5%亚甲蓝溶液中24小时。随后,沿颊舌方向垂直切割成两片,每颗牙得到4个表面,用于通过偏光显微镜(PLM)和Image-J软件测定封闭剂的微渗漏和渗入比例。采用方差分析和Bonferroni多重比较确定显著差异(α = 0.05)。使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)检测封闭剂的适应性。

结果

观察到EC的微渗漏最高,其次是CLC、HC、UC、CLI、HI、EI和UI。渗入最高的是UI,其次是HI、CLI、CLC、UC、HC、EI和EC。方差分析表明,封闭剂类型和应用方法在微渗漏和渗入方面存在显著差异(<0.05)。扫描电子显微镜显示,与传统应用(C)相比,诱导应用(I)方法显著减少了微渗漏并具有更好的渗入效果(<0.05)。

结论

封闭剂的微渗漏和渗入能力受封闭剂类型和应用方法的极大影响。U封闭剂的微渗漏比其他封闭剂少,渗入能力更好。诱导应用减少了微渗漏,促进了更好的渗入和适应性,是推荐的封闭剂应用方式。微渗漏、渗入、牙科封闭剂。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/1ae5/10625679/3693862c33fe/jced-15-e810-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