Opdam N J, Roeters F J, Feilzer A J, Verdonschot E H
Department of Cariology and Endodontology, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
J Dent. 1998 Sep;26(7):555-62. doi: 10.1016/s0300-5712(97)00042-0.
Problems that may arise in resin composite Class 2 restorations include microleakage and postoperative sensitivity. However, limited in-vivo research is conducted to evaluate these processes.
The aim of this study was to assess postoperative sensitivity, microleakage and the pooling of adhesives in relation to Class 2 box-type composite restorations placed in vivo using various adhesive systems and application techniques.
One hundred and forty-four Class 2 box restorations were placed in the mesial and distal surfaces of 72 premolar teeth in-vivo using one of three combinations of adhesive systems and three filling techniques. After 6 weeks of clinical service postoperative sensitivity was recorded. The teeth were then extracted, immersed in a dye solution and sectioned. Microleakage and pooling of the adhesive was recorded. Statistical analysis involved logistic regression and chi2 tests to identify differences between groups at p < 0.05.
Of the 144 restorations, 65 showed minimal cervical leakage in enamel, 5 suffered leakage into dentin and 74 were free of microleakage. No statistically significant differences were found in cervical microleakage between the adhesive systems or between filling procedures. Occlusal microleakage in the enamel was present in 16 of the 160 restorations. Liner Bond 2 restorations leaked significantly more at the occlusal surface (p < 0.05). Pooling of the adhesive was significantly less when PhotoBond was used. No spontaneous postoperative sensitivity was reported. Twenty-eight restorations were sensitive to loading. Postoperative sensitivity was significantly less in patients with Liner Bond 2 restorations.
The adhesive systems used in this study showed minimal leakage into dentin in vivo. Using Liner Bond 2, restorations exhibited more occlusal leakage but were significantly less sensitive to loading.
树脂复合材料Ⅱ类修复体可能出现的问题包括微渗漏和术后敏感。然而，针对这些过程的体内研究有限。
本研究的目的是评估使用各种粘结系统和应用技术进行体内放置的Ⅱ类盒状复合树脂修复体的术后敏感性、微渗漏和粘结剂聚集情况。
使用粘结系统的三种组合之一和三种充填技术，在72颗前磨牙的近中面和远中面体内放置144个Ⅱ类盒状修复体。临床使用6周后记录术后敏感性。然后拔牙，浸入染料溶液中并切片。记录微渗漏和粘结剂聚集情况。统计分析采用逻辑回归和卡方检验，以确定p<0.05时各组之间的差异。
在144个修复体中，65个在釉质中显示出最小的颈部渗漏，5个渗漏到牙本质中，74个无微渗漏。粘结系统之间或充填程序之间在颈部微渗漏方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。160个修复体中有16个在釉质中有咬合面微渗漏。Liner Bond 2修复体在咬合面的渗漏明显更多（p<0.05）。使用PhotoBond时，粘结剂的聚集明显较少。未报告自发的术后敏感情况。28个修复体对加载敏感。Liner Bond 2修复体患者的术后敏感性明显较低。
本研究中使用的粘结系统在体内显示出进入牙本质的渗漏最小。使用Liner Bond 2时，修复体表现出更多的咬合面渗漏，但对加载的敏感性明显较低。
