Gürler Sümeyye, Demirel Akif, Buyuksungur Arda
Faculty of Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ankara University, Ankara, 06560, Turkey.
Faculty of Dentistry, Basic Medical Sciences Department, Ankara University, Ankara, 06560, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Jan 7;25(1):36. doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05339-7.
This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the effects of different cavity conditioners on internal adaptation (IA) of glass ionomer-based restorative materials applied to primary teeth.
80 extracted primary second molar teeth were randomly assigned to four different cavity conditioner groups [10% polyacrylic acid, 20% polyacrylic acid, 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), 35% phosphoric acid]. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces and relevant cavity conditioners were applied, and the samples in each cavity conditioner group were randomly assigned to glass hybrid (GHR) or conventional glass ionomer restoratives (CGIR). Subsequently, restorative materials were applied and all samples were thermocycled (5-55 °C, 5000 cycles) and IA were calculated volumetrically by using a Micro Computed Tomography (Micro-CT) system. IA values was recorded as % and data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Statistical significance level was set as 5%.
35% phosphoric acid showed the lowest mean internal voids (between the cavity-restoration interface) for both restorative materials (for GHR = 0.180% and for CGIR = 0.936%). However, the highest mean internal voids for GHR and CGIR were observed after the use of 17% EDTA (2.438%) and 10% polyacrylic acid (8.483%), respectively. For both restorative materials, 20% polyacrylic acid showed the second lowest mean internal voids (for GHR = 0.321% and for CGIR = 3.580%), however, no significant difference was found between 35% phosphoric acid and 20% polyacrylic acid (p = 0.941 for GHR and p = 0.061 for CGIR). In the samples applied the cavity conditioners other than 17% EDTA, glass hybrid restoratives showed significantly higher IA quality than conventional glass ionomer (p = 0.0001 for 10% polyacrylic acid, p = 0.001 for 20% polyacrylic acid and p = 0.002 for 35% phosphoric acid).
Within the limitations of this study, 35% phosphoric acid and 20% polyacrylic acid were determined to be the most successful cavity conditioners in terms of IA, and glass hybrid restorative system showed superior IA quality than conventional glass ionomer. Further studies are needed to confirm the present results.
本研究旨在比较评估不同窝洞调节剂对应用于乳牙的玻璃离子基修复材料内部适应性（IA）的影响。
80颗拔除的乳牙第二磨牙随机分为四个不同的窝洞调节剂组[10%聚丙烯酸、20%聚丙烯酸、17%乙二胺四乙酸（EDTA）、35%磷酸]。在颊面制备V类窝洞并应用相关窝洞调节剂，每个窝洞调节剂组的样本随机分配至玻璃混合（GHR）或传统玻璃离子修复体（CGIR）。随后，应用修复材料，所有样本进行热循环（5 - 55°C，5000次循环），并使用微型计算机断层扫描（Micro-CT）系统通过体积法计算IA。IA值记录为%，数据采用Mann-Whitney U检验和Kruskal-Wallis H检验进行分析。统计学显著性水平设定为5%。
对于两种修复材料，35%磷酸在窝洞 - 修复界面之间显示出最低的平均内部孔隙率（GHR为0.180%，CGIR为0.936%）。然而，使用17% EDTA后观察到GHR的平均内部孔隙率最高（2.438%），使用10%聚丙烯酸后观察到CGIR的平均内部孔隙率最高（8.483%）。对于两种修复材料，20%聚丙烯酸显示出第二低的平均内部孔隙率（GHR为0.321%，CGIR为3. .580%），然而，35%磷酸和20%聚丙烯酸之间未发现显著差异（GHR的p值为0.941，CGIR的p值为0.061）。在应用除17% EDTA以外的窝洞调节剂的样本中，玻璃混合修复体显示出比传统玻璃离子修复体显著更高的IA质量（10%聚丙烯酸的p值为0.0001，20%聚丙烯酸的p值为0.001，35%磷酸的p值为0.002）。
在本研究的局限性内，就IA而言，35%磷酸和20%聚丙烯酸被确定为最成功的窝洞调节剂，并且玻璃混合修复系统显示出比传统玻璃离子修复体更优的IA质量。需要进一步研究来证实目前的结果。
