Marginal integrity of composite resin restoration in class I cavities prepared by hydro-abrasion

Hager Al-Germ, A. Abdalla, M. Salama
{"title":"Marginal integrity of composite resin restoration in class I cavities prepared by hydro-abrasion","authors":"Hager Al-Germ, A. Abdalla, M. Salama","doi":"10.4103/tdj.tdj_47_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim To evaluate and compare the marginal integrity of composite resin restorations made by two different preparation techniques: conventional drill and hydro-abrasion. Materials and methods Forty extracted human premolars with simple occlusal caries were used. The teeth were fixed with sticky wax to the base of plastic cylinder. The cylinder was filled with self-curing acrylic resin so that only root was embedded within the self-curing acrylic resin. The teeth were randomly divided into two main groups (n = 20) according to the preparation technique. Group I: class I cavity preparation was done by the conventional drill method using a #245 Carbide bur and contra angle high-speed hand piece with water coolant. Cavity design was restricted to remove caries with no undercuts, and no beveling. Group II: class I cavity preparation was done by Aquacut Quattro air hydro-abrasion unit which uses a gamma irradiated aluminum oxide particle as abrasives (29 μm), cutting fluid and a hand piece of 0.6 mm diameter tip. The preparation in both groups was restored by the same composite resin (Grandio) and adhesive systems (Futurabond U) following the manufacturer's instructions. All specimens were thermocycled. Impressions for each tooth was made using a polyvinyl Siloxane material. The impressions were then poured with epoxy resin. These replicas were examined under scanning electron microscope. Scanning electron microscope photographs of tested samples were used for the gap evaluation. Results It was found that, group I recorded higher mean value of marginal gap length (157.57 ± 35.15 μm) than group II that recorded (69.55 ± 20.02 μm). Also, group I recorded higher mean value of marginal gap length ratio (10.72 ± 2.47) than group II that recorded (7.44 ± 2.69). Conclusion Conventional drilling technique was faster than the hydro-abrasion technique for cavity preparation. Hydro-abrasion technique showed more marginal adaptation than conventional drilling technique.","PeriodicalId":22324,"journal":{"name":"Tanta Dental Journal","volume":"86 1","pages":"12 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tanta Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tdj.tdj_47_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim To evaluate and compare the marginal integrity of composite resin restorations made by two different preparation techniques: conventional drill and hydro-abrasion. Materials and methods Forty extracted human premolars with simple occlusal caries were used. The teeth were fixed with sticky wax to the base of plastic cylinder. The cylinder was filled with self-curing acrylic resin so that only root was embedded within the self-curing acrylic resin. The teeth were randomly divided into two main groups (n = 20) according to the preparation technique. Group I: class I cavity preparation was done by the conventional drill method using a #245 Carbide bur and contra angle high-speed hand piece with water coolant. Cavity design was restricted to remove caries with no undercuts, and no beveling. Group II: class I cavity preparation was done by Aquacut Quattro air hydro-abrasion unit which uses a gamma irradiated aluminum oxide particle as abrasives (29 μm), cutting fluid and a hand piece of 0.6 mm diameter tip. The preparation in both groups was restored by the same composite resin (Grandio) and adhesive systems (Futurabond U) following the manufacturer's instructions. All specimens were thermocycled. Impressions for each tooth was made using a polyvinyl Siloxane material. The impressions were then poured with epoxy resin. These replicas were examined under scanning electron microscope. Scanning electron microscope photographs of tested samples were used for the gap evaluation. Results It was found that, group I recorded higher mean value of marginal gap length (157.57 ± 35.15 μm) than group II that recorded (69.55 ± 20.02 μm). Also, group I recorded higher mean value of marginal gap length ratio (10.72 ± 2.47) than group II that recorded (7.44 ± 2.69). Conclusion Conventional drilling technique was faster than the hydro-abrasion technique for cavity preparation. Hydro-abrasion technique showed more marginal adaptation than conventional drilling technique.
复合树脂修复ⅰ类牙腔的边缘完整性
目的评价和比较常规钻孔和水磨两种制备工艺对复合树脂修复体边缘完整性的影响。材料与方法选取40颗拔牙单纯性牙合龋。用粘蜡将牙齿固定在塑料瓶的底部。筒体内填充自固化丙烯酸树脂,只将根埋在自固化丙烯酸树脂内。根据预备方法随机分为两组(n = 20)。I组:I类型腔的制备采用常规钻削方法,采用245硬质合金钎头和带水冷剂的对角高速手片。空腔的设计局限于去除龋齿,没有切口,没有斜面。II组:I类空腔制备由Aquacut Quattro空气水磨装置完成,该装置使用γ辐照氧化铝颗粒作为磨料(29 μm),切削液和0.6 mm直径的手片。根据制造商的说明,两组的制剂使用相同的复合树脂(Grandio)和粘合剂系统(Futurabond U)进行修复。所有的标本都进行了热循环。每颗牙齿的印模都是用聚氯乙烯硅氧烷材料制作的。然后用环氧树脂浇筑印模。这些复制品在扫描电子显微镜下进行了检查。测试样品的扫描电子显微镜照片用于间隙评估。结果I组的边缘间隙长度平均值(157.57±35.15 μm)高于II组(69.55±20.02 μm)。对照组边缘间隙长度比平均值(10.72±2.47)高于对照组(7.44±2.69)。结论常规钻孔技术比水磨技术制备空腔的速度快。水磨技术比常规钻井技术具有更强的边际适应性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信