Bashaer Abdulsahib Najim, Abeer Ghalib Abdulkhaliq, Mohammed Nahidh, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini
{"title":"新型生物活性修复材料的微渗漏评估:体外对比研究。","authors":"Bashaer Abdulsahib Najim, Abeer Ghalib Abdulkhaliq, Mohammed Nahidh, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This in-vitro study aimes to compare the microleakage of different restorative materials namely EQUIA Forte (GC, Japan), Tetric Evoceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), and Activa BioACTIVE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A standardized class V cavity has been created on the buccal surface of 40 sound premolar teeth. The cavity had the following measurements: 3 mm buccolingual height, 2 mm axial depth, and 4 mm mesiodistal width. The gingival margin was 1mm below the cementoenamel junction, whereas the coronal margin was on the enamel with cavosurface margins were butt joints all around. Four groups of teeth were restored according to the restorative materials. Under a stereomicroscope, the dye penetration test was used to measure the microleakage after thermocycling of the teeth. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Occlusal and gingival margins did not show statistically significant differences among the four groups, but an intragroup analysis revealed a significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The type of restorative material did not appear to have a substantial impact on microleakage, according to the findings of the current investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18709,"journal":{"name":"Minerva dental and oral science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the microleakage of new bioactive restorative materials: a comparative in-vitro study.\",\"authors\":\"Bashaer Abdulsahib Najim, Abeer Ghalib Abdulkhaliq, Mohammed Nahidh, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini\",\"doi\":\"10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This in-vitro study aimes to compare the microleakage of different restorative materials namely EQUIA Forte (GC, Japan), Tetric Evoceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), and Activa BioACTIVE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A standardized class V cavity has been created on the buccal surface of 40 sound premolar teeth. The cavity had the following measurements: 3 mm buccolingual height, 2 mm axial depth, and 4 mm mesiodistal width. The gingival margin was 1mm below the cementoenamel junction, whereas the coronal margin was on the enamel with cavosurface margins were butt joints all around. Four groups of teeth were restored according to the restorative materials. Under a stereomicroscope, the dye penetration test was used to measure the microleakage after thermocycling of the teeth. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Occlusal and gingival margins did not show statistically significant differences among the four groups, but an intragroup analysis revealed a significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The type of restorative material did not appear to have a substantial impact on microleakage, according to the findings of the current investigation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18709,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva dental and oral science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva dental and oral science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva dental and oral science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:这项体外研究旨在比较不同修复材料(即 EQUIA Forte(日本 GC 公司)、Tetric Evoceram(列支敦士登 Ivoclar Vivadent 公司)和 Activa BioACTIVE)的微渗漏情况:方法:在 40 颗健全前臼齿的颊面制作一个标准的 V 级龋洞。龋洞的测量值如下颊舌侧高度为 3 毫米,轴向深度为 2 毫米,中周宽度为 4 毫米。龈缘在牙釉质交界处下 1 毫米,而冠缘在釉质上,龋洞表面边缘四周为对接。根据修复材料的不同,修复了四组牙齿。在体视显微镜下,使用染料渗透试验测量牙齿热循环后的微渗漏情况。数据比较采用 Kruskal-Wallis H 和 Mann-Whitney U 检验:结果:咬合边缘和龈缘在四组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异,但组内分析显示存在显著差异:结论:根据目前的研究结果,修复材料的类型似乎对微渗漏没有实质性的影响。
Evaluation of the microleakage of new bioactive restorative materials: a comparative in-vitro study.
Background: This in-vitro study aimes to compare the microleakage of different restorative materials namely EQUIA Forte (GC, Japan), Tetric Evoceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), and Activa BioACTIVE.
Methods: A standardized class V cavity has been created on the buccal surface of 40 sound premolar teeth. The cavity had the following measurements: 3 mm buccolingual height, 2 mm axial depth, and 4 mm mesiodistal width. The gingival margin was 1mm below the cementoenamel junction, whereas the coronal margin was on the enamel with cavosurface margins were butt joints all around. Four groups of teeth were restored according to the restorative materials. Under a stereomicroscope, the dye penetration test was used to measure the microleakage after thermocycling of the teeth. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests.
Results: Occlusal and gingival margins did not show statistically significant differences among the four groups, but an intragroup analysis revealed a significant difference.
Conclusions: The type of restorative material did not appear to have a substantial impact on microleakage, according to the findings of the current investigation.