临床和实验室粘接技术对评估修复体边缘和内部密合度的影响

Q4 Dentistry
Carolina Chaves Pinto, Leonardo André Lins da Silva, C. A. A. Licurci, Antonio Canabarro
{"title":"临床和实验室粘接技术对评估修复体边缘和内部密合度的影响","authors":"Carolina Chaves Pinto, Leonardo André Lins da Silva, C. A. A. Licurci, Antonio Canabarro","doi":"10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8670950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare machine and manual cementation of prosthetic elements by measuring internal and marginal fits. Methods: Eighteen anatomic prefabricated abutments were used to manufacture zirconia copings in the Ceramill (n=9) and Lava systems (n=9). The copings were cemented with a fluid consistency addition silicone using a machine (n=18) and manually (n=18) according to the replica technique. They were then cut in the buccal-palatal and mesial-distal directions. The film thickness was photographed using an optical microscope and measured in the internal and marginal regions. The data collected were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test (∂=.05). The Bland-Altman test was performed to evaluate the agreement between the methods. Results: In the evaluation of the internal and marginal misfits, the mean values observed for the cementation performed with the aid of a machine and manually, were as follows: angular regions, 76.7 μm and 76.2 μm; linear regions, 60.6 μm and 60.7 μm; incisal region, 144.8 μm and 145.2 μm; marginal region, 40.1 μm and 40.2 μm; and overall mean, 80.4 μm and 80.6 μm, respectively. No significant differences were found between the 2 methods, for any of regions and systems (P>.05). The Bland-Altman test showed agreement between the methods (P>.05) and that the limits of agreement found were clinically acceptable. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we can conclude that cementation using manual techniques or mechanical aid produces the same cement films.","PeriodicalId":34984,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","volume":"7 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of clinical and laboratory techniques of cementation on the assessment of marginal and internal fit of prosthetic elements\",\"authors\":\"Carolina Chaves Pinto, Leonardo André Lins da Silva, C. A. A. Licurci, Antonio Canabarro\",\"doi\":\"10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8670950\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare machine and manual cementation of prosthetic elements by measuring internal and marginal fits. Methods: Eighteen anatomic prefabricated abutments were used to manufacture zirconia copings in the Ceramill (n=9) and Lava systems (n=9). The copings were cemented with a fluid consistency addition silicone using a machine (n=18) and manually (n=18) according to the replica technique. They were then cut in the buccal-palatal and mesial-distal directions. The film thickness was photographed using an optical microscope and measured in the internal and marginal regions. The data collected were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test (∂=.05). The Bland-Altman test was performed to evaluate the agreement between the methods. Results: In the evaluation of the internal and marginal misfits, the mean values observed for the cementation performed with the aid of a machine and manually, were as follows: angular regions, 76.7 μm and 76.2 μm; linear regions, 60.6 μm and 60.7 μm; incisal region, 144.8 μm and 145.2 μm; marginal region, 40.1 μm and 40.2 μm; and overall mean, 80.4 μm and 80.6 μm, respectively. No significant differences were found between the 2 methods, for any of regions and systems (P>.05). The Bland-Altman test showed agreement between the methods (P>.05) and that the limits of agreement found were clinically acceptable. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we can conclude that cementation using manual techniques or mechanical aid produces the same cement films.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34984,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences\",\"volume\":\"7 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8670950\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v23i00.8670950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:这项体外研究的目的是通过测量内部和边缘的密合度,比较机器和人工粘接修复体的效果。研究方法在 Ceramill(9 个)和 Lava(9 个)系统中使用 18 个解剖预制基台制作氧化锆修复体。根据复制技术,使用机器(18 个)和手工(18 个)用稠度较高的添加硅酮粘结基台。然后在颊-腭和中-远侧方向进行切割。使用光学显微镜拍摄并测量内部和边缘区域的薄膜厚度。收集的数据采用重复测量方差分析和 Bonferroni 多重比较检验(∂=.05)进行分析。采用 Bland-Altman 检验来评估两种方法之间的一致性。结果在内侧和边缘错位的评估中,借助机器和人工进行粘接的平均值如下:角区,分别为 76.7 μm 和 76.2 μm;线区,分别为 60.6 μm 和 60.7 μm;切缘区,分别为 144.8 μm 和 145.2 μm;边缘区,分别为 40.1 μm 和 40.2 μm;总体平均值,分别为 80.4 μm 和 80.6 μm。两种方法在任何区域和系统中都没有发现明显差异(P>.05)。Bland-Altman 检验显示,两种方法的结果一致(P>.05),且一致程度在临床上是可以接受的。结论在这项体外研究的局限性范围内,我们可以得出结论,使用人工技术或机械辅助进行骨水泥粘接所产生的骨水泥膜是相同的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of clinical and laboratory techniques of cementation on the assessment of marginal and internal fit of prosthetic elements
Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare machine and manual cementation of prosthetic elements by measuring internal and marginal fits. Methods: Eighteen anatomic prefabricated abutments were used to manufacture zirconia copings in the Ceramill (n=9) and Lava systems (n=9). The copings were cemented with a fluid consistency addition silicone using a machine (n=18) and manually (n=18) according to the replica technique. They were then cut in the buccal-palatal and mesial-distal directions. The film thickness was photographed using an optical microscope and measured in the internal and marginal regions. The data collected were analyzed by repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test (∂=.05). The Bland-Altman test was performed to evaluate the agreement between the methods. Results: In the evaluation of the internal and marginal misfits, the mean values observed for the cementation performed with the aid of a machine and manually, were as follows: angular regions, 76.7 μm and 76.2 μm; linear regions, 60.6 μm and 60.7 μm; incisal region, 144.8 μm and 145.2 μm; marginal region, 40.1 μm and 40.2 μm; and overall mean, 80.4 μm and 80.6 μm, respectively. No significant differences were found between the 2 methods, for any of regions and systems (P>.05). The Bland-Altman test showed agreement between the methods (P>.05) and that the limits of agreement found were clinically acceptable. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we can conclude that cementation using manual techniques or mechanical aid produces the same cement films.
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
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences
Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences is an international non-profit journal, which publishes full-Length papers, original research reports, literature reviews, special reports, clinical cases, current topics and short communications, dealing with dentistry or related disciplines.
×
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