不同常用修复材料修复牙体咬合力的比较研究

Manay Srinivas Munisekhar, Bander Fayez Alruwaili, Kiran Kumar Ganji, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Vinod Bandela, Mohammed Ghazi Sghaireen
{"title":"不同常用修复材料修复牙体咬合力的比较研究","authors":"Manay Srinivas Munisekhar, Bander Fayez Alruwaili, Kiran Kumar Ganji, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Vinod Bandela, Mohammed Ghazi Sghaireen","doi":"10.1590/pboci.2023.056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To evaluate and compare bite force (BF) in permanent first molars restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC), composite and amalgam, and normal contralateral permanent first molars. Material and Methods: BF was recorded in decayed permanent first molars, which were filled with GIC (n=30), composite (n=30), and amalgam (n=30), and in healthy contralateral first molars (n=90) with Force Transducer Occlusal Force Meter and compared. Results: BF was significantly higher in normal teeth on the contralateral side compared to teeth restored with GIC and composite. However, in patients with amalgam restoration, though it was less compared to that on the contralateral side, it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: Restoring teeth with various filling materials may improve bite force. In the present study, it was found that the teeth restored with amalgam had higher bite forces in comparison to the other restorative materials used. However, it was not comparable to that observed in the normal tooth (control) on the contralateral side.","PeriodicalId":134552,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Research in Pediatric Dentistry and Integrated Clinic","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Bite Forces in Restored Teeth with Different Commonly Used Restorative Materials: A Comparative Study\",\"authors\":\"Manay Srinivas Munisekhar, Bander Fayez Alruwaili, Kiran Kumar Ganji, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Vinod Bandela, Mohammed Ghazi Sghaireen\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/pboci.2023.056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: To evaluate and compare bite force (BF) in permanent first molars restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC), composite and amalgam, and normal contralateral permanent first molars. Material and Methods: BF was recorded in decayed permanent first molars, which were filled with GIC (n=30), composite (n=30), and amalgam (n=30), and in healthy contralateral first molars (n=90) with Force Transducer Occlusal Force Meter and compared. Results: BF was significantly higher in normal teeth on the contralateral side compared to teeth restored with GIC and composite. However, in patients with amalgam restoration, though it was less compared to that on the contralateral side, it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: Restoring teeth with various filling materials may improve bite force. In the present study, it was found that the teeth restored with amalgam had higher bite forces in comparison to the other restorative materials used. However, it was not comparable to that observed in the normal tooth (control) on the contralateral side.\",\"PeriodicalId\":134552,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Research in Pediatric Dentistry and Integrated Clinic\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Research in Pediatric Dentistry and Integrated Clinic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2023.056\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Research in Pediatric Dentistry and Integrated Clinic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2023.056","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较玻璃离子水门合剂(GIC)、复合水门合剂和银汞合金修复的恒磨牙与正常对侧恒磨牙的咬合力。材料与方法:用GIC (n=30)、复合材料(n=30)、银汞合金(n=30)充填龋齿恒磨牙,用力传感器咬合力计(n=90)对恒磨牙进行BF记录,并进行比较。结果:对侧正常牙的BF明显高于GIC和复合材料修复牙。而在汞合金修复组患者中,虽然与对侧比较较少,但差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。结论:采用不同的充填材料修复牙体可提高牙合力。在本研究中,我们发现用汞合金修复的牙齿比使用其他修复材料具有更高的咬合力。然而,与对侧正常牙(对照)的观察结果不具有可比性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Bite Forces in Restored Teeth with Different Commonly Used Restorative Materials: A Comparative Study
Objective: To evaluate and compare bite force (BF) in permanent first molars restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC), composite and amalgam, and normal contralateral permanent first molars. Material and Methods: BF was recorded in decayed permanent first molars, which were filled with GIC (n=30), composite (n=30), and amalgam (n=30), and in healthy contralateral first molars (n=90) with Force Transducer Occlusal Force Meter and compared. Results: BF was significantly higher in normal teeth on the contralateral side compared to teeth restored with GIC and composite. However, in patients with amalgam restoration, though it was less compared to that on the contralateral side, it was not statistically significant (p>0.05). Conclusion: Restoring teeth with various filling materials may improve bite force. In the present study, it was found that the teeth restored with amalgam had higher bite forces in comparison to the other restorative materials used. However, it was not comparable to that observed in the normal tooth (control) on the contralateral side.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信