Suppr超能文献

三种修整系统对四种美学修复材料的影响。

The effect of three finishing systems on four esthetic restorative materials.

作者信息

Hoelscher D C, Neme A M, Pink F E, Hughes P J

机构信息

University of Detroit Mercy, School of Dentistry, MI 48219-3580, USA.

出版信息

Oper Dent. 1998 Jan-Feb;23(1):36-42.

PMID:9610331
Abstract

Previous studies have investigated the finishing and smoothness of composite and traditional glass-ionomer restorations, but few have included resin-modified glass-ionomer cements or more recent finishing systems. The results of using three different finishing systems (Sof-Lex, Enhance, finishing burs) on two composites (Silux, Prisma TPH), a traditional glass ionomer (Ketac-Fil), and a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) were studied. Sixty samples were condensed into sectioned acrylic tubes, covered with a Mylar matrix plus a glass slide at each surface, then cured as per the manufacturers' instructions. Samples were randomized to three groups of five for each material and testing with a Surfanalyzer 4000 of unfinished samples (cured with Mylar matrix) was done to obtain baseline average surface roughness (Ra). Samples were then finished as per the manufacturers' instructions using polishing disks, abrasive impregnated disks, and finishing burs before further surface testing. Samples finished with burs and with abrasive impregnated disks were further polished using polishing paste (Prisma Gloss) and again tested. Data were analyzed with ANOVA testing and Tukey's HSD pairwise comparison. Initial testing after randomization to groups showed no significant difference in surface roughness (P = 0.24). Two-factor analysis revealed no significant difference between materials (P = 0.34), a significant difference in method of finish (P < or = 0.00), with no significant interaction between type of material and method of finish (P = 0.11). Aluminum oxide disk and impregnated disk systems provided the best finish for microfilled composite and both glass-ionomer materials (P < or = 0.00). No significant difference in method of finish existed with the hybrid composite (P = 0.07). Overall, esthetic restorative material finishing is best accomplished using abrasive impregnated disks or aluminum oxide disks. Finishing burs gave a significantly rougher surface than the former methods.

摘要

以往的研究调查了复合树脂和传统玻璃离子修复体的光洁度和平滑度,但很少有研究涉及树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀或更新的修整系统。本研究使用三种不同的修整系统(Sof-Lex、Enhance、修整车针)对两种复合树脂(Silux、Prisma TPH)、一种传统玻璃离子(Ketac-Fil)和一种树脂改性玻璃离子(Fuji II LC)进行处理,并观察其效果。将60个样本填入分段的丙烯酸管中,每个表面覆盖聚酯薄膜基质和载玻片,然后按照制造商的说明进行固化。将样本随机分为三组,每组每种材料5个,使用Surfanalyzer 4000对未处理的样本(用聚酯薄膜基质固化)进行测试,以获得基线平均表面粗糙度(Ra)。然后按照制造商的说明,使用抛光盘、含磨料的抛光盘和修整车针对样本进行修整,之后再进行表面测试。使用车针和含磨料的抛光盘修整后的样本,再用抛光膏(Prisma Gloss)进一步抛光并再次测试。数据采用方差分析和Tukey's HSD两两比较进行分析。随机分组后的初始测试显示表面粗糙度无显著差异(P = 0.24)。双因素分析显示材料之间无显著差异(P = 0.34),修整方法有显著差异(P≤0.00),材料类型和修整方法之间无显著交互作用(P = 0.11)。氧化铝盘和含磨料的抛光盘系统为微填料复合树脂和两种玻璃离子材料提供了最佳的修整效果(P≤0.00)。混合复合树脂在修整方法上无显著差异(P = 0.07)。总体而言,美观修复材料的修整最好使用含磨料的抛光盘或氧化铝盘来完成。修整车针产生的表面粗糙度明显高于前两种方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验