光固化感染控制屏障：某些类型是否会危及传统大块充填复合材料的概念？
Light curing infection control barriers: do some types jeopardize the concept of conventional bulk-fill composites?
机构信息
Biomaterials Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain-Shams University, Organization of African unity, Cairo, Egypt.
Badya University, Badya, Giza, Egypt.
出版信息
BMC Oral Health. 2024 Nov 3;24(1):1339. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05033-8.
BACKGROUND
Using infection control barriers (ICBs) on light curing units (LCUs) became mandatory to achieve proper infection control measures without jeopardizing the integrity of the restorations, especially at deeper layers. This study explored the effect of two ICBs on the irradiance of the LCU, as well as the degree of conversion (DC) and flexural strength (FS) of two types of bulk-fill composites. Water vapor permeability (WVP) of both barriers was also assessed to evaluate the capability of such barriers to prevent transmission of blood and saliva droplets and aerosols.
METHODS
Two bulk-fill composites (X-tra fil and Tetric N- ceram) and two ICBs (Pinnacle Cure sleeve and Sanita wrapping film) were used in this study. Light irradiance was recorded per experimental condition using spectroradiometer. For DC and FS, specimens of 4 mm thickness were prepared. Each specimen was composed of two separable upper and lower layers of thickness 2 mm. DC and FS were measured using Infra-red spectroscopy and three-point loading test respectively. WVP was investigated using the cup method. Means and standard deviations were calculated, and the data were statistically analyzed using factorial analysis of variance test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
Light irradiance showed highest values using no ICBs and lowest values using Pinnacle curing sleeve. Both bulk-fill composites showed higher DC mean values without ICBs and when using Sanita wrapping film for both upper and lower layers of the specimens compared to Pinnacle curing sleeve. The upper layers of composite specimens showed higher DC compared to lower layers for all experimental conditions. Both ICBs had no adverse effect on FS of both composites' upper layers. Pinnacle sleeve significantly reduced FS of both composites' lower layers. X-tra fil showed higher DC and FS compared to Tetric N-Ceram for all experimental conditions. Regarding WVP; the wrapping film showed higher WVP compared to the curing sleeve.
CONCLUSIONS
Sanita wrapping film can be used as a successful ICB, without jeopardizing the concept of bulk-fill composites. Pinnacle cure sleeve can be considered an effective ICB, however its influence on properties and serviceability of bulk-fill composites remains questionable.
背景
在光固化机（LCU）上使用感染控制屏障（ICB）已成为实现适当感染控制措施的强制性要求，而不会损害修复体的完整性，尤其是在更深的层次。本研究探讨了两种 ICB 对 LCU 光强度的影响，以及两种块状填充复合材料的转化率（DC）和弯曲强度（FS）。还评估了两种屏障的水蒸气透过率（WVP），以评估这种屏障防止血液和唾液飞沫和气溶胶传播的能力。
方法
本研究使用了两种块状填充复合材料（X-tra fil 和 Tetric N- ceram）和两种 ICB（Pinnacle Cure 套管和 Sanita 包装膜）。使用分光辐射计记录每种实验条件下的光强度。对于 DC 和 FS，制备了 4 毫米厚的试件。每个试件由厚度为 2 毫米的两个可分离的上层和下层组成。使用红外光谱法测量 DC 和使用三点加载试验测量 FS。使用杯法研究 WVP。计算平均值和标准差，并使用方差分析测试（α=0.05）进行统计分析。
结果
不使用 ICB 时，光强度显示出最高值，使用 Pinnacle 固化套管时，光强度显示出最低值。两种块状填充复合材料在不使用 ICB 时以及在试件的上下层均使用 Sanita 包装膜时，显示出较高的 DC 平均值，而使用 Pinnacle 固化套管时则较低。对于所有实验条件，复合材料试件的上层显示出比下层更高的 DC。两种 ICB 对复合材料上层的 FS 均无不良影响。Pinnacle 套管显著降低了两种复合材料下层的 FS。在所有实验条件下，X-tra fil 显示出比 Tetric N-Ceram 更高的 DC 和 FS。关于 WVP，包装膜显示出比固化套管更高的 WVP。
结论
Sanita 包装膜可用作成功的 ICB，而不会损害块状填充复合材料的概念。Pinnacle 固化套管可被认为是一种有效的 ICB，但其对块状填充复合材料的性能和适用性的影响仍存在疑问。
Zotero 插件