Hallett K B, Garcia-Godoy F
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio.
Dent Mater. 1993 Sep;9(5):306-11. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(93)90048-u.
Microleakage of two resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials was compared with that of two conventional GIC restorative materials. Forty-five noncarious extracted human molars were prepared with standardized Class V cavity outlines on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The occlusal margin was in enamel and the gingival margin was in dentin/cementum. All were restored according to the manufacturers' instructions. After thermocycling, 30 teeth were placed in 2% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h, sectioned and viewed with a stereomicroscope to assess microleakage. The other 15 teeth were sectioned, replicated and prepared for marginal gap evaluation using a SEM. Differences in microleakage scores between materials were compared using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. One resin-modified GIC restorative material showed significantly less microleakage against enamel and dentin/cementum compared to the conventional GIC restorative (p < 0.01). Marginal gap formation for both resin-modified GIC restorations was limited to the axial wall of the restorations.
将两种树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(GIC)修复材料的微渗漏情况与两种传统GIC修复材料的微渗漏情况进行了比较。对45颗非龋性拔除的人类磨牙在颊面和舌面制备具有标准化V类洞外形的洞型。咬合边缘位于釉质内,牙龈边缘位于牙本质/牙骨质内。所有牙齿均按照制造商的说明进行修复。热循环后,将30颗牙齿置于2%碱性品红染料中24小时,切片并用体视显微镜观察以评估微渗漏情况。另外15颗牙齿进行切片、复制,并使用扫描电子显微镜准备进行边缘间隙评估。使用Kruskal-Wallis和Mann-Whitney U检验比较材料之间微渗漏评分的差异。与传统GIC修复材料相比,一种树脂改性GIC修复材料对釉质和牙本质/牙骨质的微渗漏明显更少(p < 0.01)。两种树脂改性GIC修复体的边缘间隙形成仅限于修复体的轴向壁。