Mundaragi Vijay Amarnath C, Niranjan Nandini T, Chandrashekhar Kusuma S, Rao Dhanu G, Patil Thimmanagowda N, Chavan Suvarna C
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Subbaiah Institute of Dental Sciences, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davanagere, Karnataka, India.
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024 Oct;17(10):1146-1152. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2957.
To compare the microleakage of three bulk-fill composite resins with or without resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) liner.
A total of 30 maxillary human 1st premolar teeth were selected. Two box preparations were made on the mesial and distal sides. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. RMGIC liner with 1 mm thick were applied to the mesial box. The specimens were divided into three groups according to the type of bulk-fill composites used and restoration of the cavities were done according to manufacturer instructions and light cured. Finishing and polishing were done and stored for 1 week in distilled water at 37°C. Thermocycling was then performed in a thermocycling unit. The specimens were then immersed in 0.5% methylene blue for 8 hours at 37°C. All the specimens were sectioned longitudinally in a mesiodistal direction and analyzed under 20× magnification in a stereomicroscope. The degree of dye penetration was scored.
Subgroup M showed comparatively less microleakage compared to subgroup D in all the groups which was statistically significant. When microleakage between the study group on mesial and distal sides was compared, group smart dentin replacement (SDR)-M showed less microleakage compared to group F-M and this difference was statistically significant.
RMGIC is the recommended liner beneath the bulk-fill composites in class II cavities and SureFil SDR bulk-fill flowable can be the recommended composite resin for class II restorations.
Bulk-fill composite is a time-saving material as it eliminates the incremental placement. RMGIC is always recommended beneath bulk-fill composites. SDR bulk-fill is the recommended composite restoration.
Mundaragi VAC, Niranjan NT, Chandrashekhar KS, Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class II Composite Restorations Using Three Bulk-fill Composites with or without Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement Liner: A Stereomicroscopic Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024;17(10):1146-1152.
比较三种大体积充填复合树脂在有无树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC)衬层情况下的微渗漏情况。
选取30颗上颌人类第一前磨牙。在近中面和远中面制备两个盒状洞形。牙齿随机分为三组,每组10颗。在近中盒状洞形上涂布1mm厚的RMGIC衬层。根据所使用的大体积充填复合树脂类型将标本分为三组,并按照制造商说明对窝洞进行修复并光固化。完成修整和抛光后,在37℃蒸馏水中储存1周。然后在热循环仪中进行热循环。接着将标本在37℃下浸入0.5%亚甲蓝中8小时。所有标本沿近远中方向纵向切片,在体视显微镜下20倍放大进行分析。对染料渗透程度进行评分。
在所有组中,亚组M的微渗漏相比亚组D相对较少,具有统计学意义。比较研究组近中面和远中面的微渗漏情况时,智能牙本质替代(SDR)-M组的微渗漏比F-M组少,且这种差异具有统计学意义。
在II类洞的大体积充填复合树脂下方,RMGIC是推荐的衬层,SureFil SDR大体积充填流动树脂可作为II类修复的推荐复合树脂。
大体积充填复合树脂是一种节省时间的材料,因为它无需分层放置。在大体积充填复合树脂下方总是推荐使用RMGIC。SDR大体积充填是推荐的复合树脂修复材料。
Mundaragi VAC, Niranjan NT, Chandrashekhar KS, 使用三种含或不含树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀衬层的大体积充填复合树脂对II类复合树脂修复体微渗漏的比较评价:一项体视显微镜研究。《国际临床儿科学牙科杂志》2024;17(10):1146 - 1152。