用扫描电镜评价不同树脂密封剂Clinpro和Embrace与乳牙牙釉质粘接后的μTBS、微渗漏和树脂标签长度。

IF 2 3区 工程技术 Q2 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY
Faisal Ali Bin Abbooud AlQhtani, Zuhair Motlak Alkahtani, Shan Sainudeen, Anshad M Abdulla, Muhammad Abdullah Kamran, Mustafa Naseem
{"title":"用扫描电镜评价不同树脂密封剂Clinpro和Embrace与乳牙牙釉质粘接后的μTBS、微渗漏和树脂标签长度。","authors":"Faisal Ali Bin Abbooud AlQhtani, Zuhair Motlak Alkahtani, Shan Sainudeen, Anshad M Abdulla, Muhammad Abdullah Kamran, Mustafa Naseem","doi":"10.1002/jemt.24876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To evaluate the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS), microleakage, and resin tag length via SEM of different resin sealants (Clinpro and Embrace) bonded to intact enamel as compared to the glass ionomer (GI) sealant in primary molars. Forty-eight fully erupted, intact second primary molars were obtained. The samples were randomly assigned to three groups according to the type of sealant used (n = 16): Group 1 (GI sealants), Group 2 (Clinpro), and Group 2 (Embrace). All restored teeth were submerged in water, keeping the temperature at 37°C for 24 h, and then thermocycled. Microleakage assessment was performed using a dye penetration test and μTBS using a universal testing machine. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to assess the resin tag length and interface. Data analysis was conducted using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. The lowest microleakage score (12.54 ± 0.09) and highest bond value (11.27 ± 0.11 MPa) were observed in Group 3 (Embrace) samples. The maximum values of marginal leakage (30.65 ± 0.04) and lowest bond scores (8.74 ± 0.02 MPa) were demonstrated by Group 1 (GI-based sealant). Intergroup comparisons indicated that Group 2 (Clinpro) and Group 3 exhibited comparable outcomes. Embrace and Clinpro displayed comparable bond integrity and marginal leakage. However, the authors of the existing study recommend that Embrace could be a better option in pediatric patients as it is difficult to maintain isolation with children.</p>","PeriodicalId":18684,"journal":{"name":"Microscopy Research and Technique","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Evaluate μTBS, Microleakage, and Resin Tag Length via Scanning Electron Microscopy of Different Resin Sealants Clinpro and Embrace Bonded to the Intact Enamel in Primary Molars.\",\"authors\":\"Faisal Ali Bin Abbooud AlQhtani, Zuhair Motlak Alkahtani, Shan Sainudeen, Anshad M Abdulla, Muhammad Abdullah Kamran, Mustafa Naseem\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jemt.24876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To evaluate the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS), microleakage, and resin tag length via SEM of different resin sealants (Clinpro and Embrace) bonded to intact enamel as compared to the glass ionomer (GI) sealant in primary molars. Forty-eight fully erupted, intact second primary molars were obtained. The samples were randomly assigned to three groups according to the type of sealant used (n = 16): Group 1 (GI sealants), Group 2 (Clinpro), and Group 2 (Embrace). All restored teeth were submerged in water, keeping the temperature at 37°C for 24 h, and then thermocycled. Microleakage assessment was performed using a dye penetration test and μTBS using a universal testing machine. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to assess the resin tag length and interface. Data analysis was conducted using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. The lowest microleakage score (12.54 ± 0.09) and highest bond value (11.27 ± 0.11 MPa) were observed in Group 3 (Embrace) samples. The maximum values of marginal leakage (30.65 ± 0.04) and lowest bond scores (8.74 ± 0.02 MPa) were demonstrated by Group 1 (GI-based sealant). Intergroup comparisons indicated that Group 2 (Clinpro) and Group 3 exhibited comparable outcomes. Embrace and Clinpro displayed comparable bond integrity and marginal leakage. However, the authors of the existing study recommend that Embrace could be a better option in pediatric patients as it is difficult to maintain isolation with children.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18684,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microscopy Research and Technique\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microscopy Research and Technique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.24876\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microscopy Research and Technique","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.24876","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过扫描电镜(SEM)比较不同树脂密封剂(Clinpro和Embrace)与玻璃离子密封剂(GI)与完整牙釉质的微拉伸结合强度(μTBS)、微渗漏和树脂标签长度。获得48颗完全出牙、完整的第二磨牙。根据使用的密封胶类型随机分为3组(n = 16): 1组(GI密封胶)、2组(Clinpro)和2组(Embrace)。将修复的牙齿全部浸泡在37℃的水中24 h,然后进行热循环。微泄漏评价采用染料渗透试验和μTBS通用试验机。采用扫描电镜(SEM)对树脂标签长度和界面进行评价。数据分析采用方差分析和事后Tukey检验。显著性水平设为p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To Evaluate μTBS, Microleakage, and Resin Tag Length via Scanning Electron Microscopy of Different Resin Sealants Clinpro and Embrace Bonded to the Intact Enamel in Primary Molars.

To evaluate the micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS), microleakage, and resin tag length via SEM of different resin sealants (Clinpro and Embrace) bonded to intact enamel as compared to the glass ionomer (GI) sealant in primary molars. Forty-eight fully erupted, intact second primary molars were obtained. The samples were randomly assigned to three groups according to the type of sealant used (n = 16): Group 1 (GI sealants), Group 2 (Clinpro), and Group 2 (Embrace). All restored teeth were submerged in water, keeping the temperature at 37°C for 24 h, and then thermocycled. Microleakage assessment was performed using a dye penetration test and μTBS using a universal testing machine. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was performed to assess the resin tag length and interface. Data analysis was conducted using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. The lowest microleakage score (12.54 ± 0.09) and highest bond value (11.27 ± 0.11 MPa) were observed in Group 3 (Embrace) samples. The maximum values of marginal leakage (30.65 ± 0.04) and lowest bond scores (8.74 ± 0.02 MPa) were demonstrated by Group 1 (GI-based sealant). Intergroup comparisons indicated that Group 2 (Clinpro) and Group 3 exhibited comparable outcomes. Embrace and Clinpro displayed comparable bond integrity and marginal leakage. However, the authors of the existing study recommend that Embrace could be a better option in pediatric patients as it is difficult to maintain isolation with children.

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
Microscopy Research and Technique
Microscopy Research and Technique 医学-解剖学与形态学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
233
审稿时长
4.7 months
期刊介绍: Microscopy Research and Technique (MRT) publishes articles on all aspects of advanced microscopy original architecture and methodologies with applications in the biological, clinical, chemical, and materials sciences. Original basic and applied research as well as technical papers dealing with the various subsets of microscopy are encouraged. MRT is the right form for those developing new microscopy methods or using the microscope to answer key questions in basic and applied research.
×
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