Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Orthodontics and Public Health, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, Bauru/SP - PO Box 73, 17012-101, Brazil.
Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla, 9-75, Bauru/SP - PO Box 73, 17012-101, Brazil.
J Dent. 2024 Mar;142:104874. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104874. Epub 2024 Feb 1.
This study evaluated the resistance of S-PRG (Surface Pre-Reacted Glass-ionomer) composites and other restorative materials against erosive and abrasive challenges and their protective effect on enamel adjacent to the restorations.
Bovine enamel blocks were prepared and randomized into 12 groups, including 6 types of material, each of them subjected to erosion_e or erosion+abrasion_ea: Beautifil II (S-PRG); Beautifil Bulk Restorative (S-PRG); Filtek Z250 XT; Filtek Bulk Fill; EQUIA Forte; Riva Light Cure. Cavities were prepared in the middle of enamel blocks and restored with the materials. Initial profiling measurement was performed on the material and on adjacent enamel (100, 200, 300, 600 and 700 μm from the restoration margin). Palatal intraoral appliances with the restored enamel blocks were used by the volunteers (n = 10). During 5 days appliances were immersed in 2.5 % citric acid for 2 min; 6 × /day (erosion_e). For ea condition, blocks were brushed for 1 min after each acid immersion. Final profile assessment was performed. Data were analysed by two and three way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test (p < 0.05).
Material wear: Riva Light Cure showed the highest wear followed by EQUIA Forte and then all resin composites, including the ones with S-PRG (p = 0.000). Enamel wear: there was significant interaction among type of restorative material, wear condition and distance (p = 0.014), enamel around materials showed similar wear (p = 0.983) and the enamel subjected to ea exhibited highest wear (p = 0.000).
SPRG based composites showed resistance against erosive and abrasive challenges but were not able to protect enamel adjacent to the restorations.
S-PRG composites exhibit resistance to material wear comparable to resin composites. However, they have shown an inability to effectively protect the adjacent enamel under in situ erosive-abrasive conditions, despite the presence of mineral-loss-preventing ions surrounding materials.
本研究评估了 S-PRG(表面预反应玻璃离子体)复合材料和其他修复材料对侵蚀和磨损挑战的抵抗力,以及它们对修复体相邻釉质的保护作用。
制备牛牙釉质块并随机分为 12 组,包括 6 种材料,每种材料均进行侵蚀_e 或侵蚀+磨损_ea 处理: Beautifil II(S-PRG);Beautifil Bulk Restorative(S-PRG);Filtek Z250 XT;Filtek Bulk Fill;EQUIA Forte;Riva Light Cure。在牙釉质块的中部制备窝洞并用材料修复。对材料和相邻釉质(从修复边缘 100、200、300、600 和 700 μm 处)进行初始轮廓测量。志愿者(n=10)使用带有修复牙釉质块的腭内口腔器具。在 5 天内,器具每天在 2.5%柠檬酸中浸泡 2 分钟,每天 6 次(侵蚀_e)。对于 ea 条件,每次酸浸泡后,块体都要刷 1 分钟。最后进行轮廓评估。使用双因素和三因素方差分析以及 Tukey 检验(p<0.05)对数据进行分析。
材料磨损:Riva Light Cure 显示出最高的磨损,其次是 EQUIA Forte,然后是所有树脂复合材料,包括含有 S-PRG 的复合材料(p=0.000)。牙釉质磨损:修复材料类型、磨损条件和距离之间存在显著的相互作用(p=0.014),材料周围的牙釉质显示出相似的磨损(p=0.983),而受到 ea 处理的牙釉质显示出最高的磨损(p=0.000)。
基于 S-PRG 的复合材料表现出对侵蚀和磨损挑战的抵抗力,但不能保护修复体相邻的釉质。
S-PRG 复合材料表现出与树脂复合材料相当的耐材料磨损性。然而,在原位侵蚀磨损条件下,它们未能有效地保护相邻的釉质,尽管材料周围存在防止矿物质损失的离子。