第五代和第七代粘接剂对I类复合修复体边缘密封的体外比较评价。

IF 5.2 3区 医学 Q1 ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL
Serban Talpos Niculescu, Ioana Veja, George-Dumitru Constantin, Ioana Elena Lile, Christos Armeniakos, Ioana Roxana Munteanu, Tareq Hajaj
{"title":"第五代和第七代粘接剂对I类复合修复体边缘密封的体外比较评价。","authors":"Serban Talpos Niculescu, Ioana Veja, George-Dumitru Constantin, Ioana Elena Lile, Christos Armeniakos, Ioana Roxana Munteanu, Tareq Hajaj","doi":"10.3390/jfb16080301","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A major challenge in adhesive dentistry, often leading to restoration failure, is microleakage. This in vitro comparative study was designed to assess microleakage at the tooth-composite interface. The investigation aimed to compare the sealing efficacy of two commonly used adhesive systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Standardized Class I cavities were prepared on 20 extracted human molars and randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 each). Group A was treated with a fifth-generation total-etch adhesive (OptiBond™ Solo Plus, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), and Group B received a seventh-generation self-etch adhesive (Adhese® Universal VivaPen®, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). All restorations were completed using Herculite XRV composite resin. Microleakage was evaluated using dye penetration analysis after immersion in 2% methylene blue for 10 days, followed by longitudinal sectioning and microscopic measurement at 500× magnification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fifth-generation adhesive group showed a mean microleakage of 0.2503 ± 0.1921 mm, while the seventh-generation group recorded 0.2484 ± 0.1764 mm. Statistical analysis using an independent t-test revealed no significant difference between the groups (<i>p</i> = 0.696).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both adhesive systems demonstrated comparable performance in minimizing microleakage under standardized conditions. Although the total-etch group exhibited slightly lower numerical values, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that both adhesive approaches can be clinically effective when applied appropriately.</p>","PeriodicalId":15767,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Functional Biomaterials","volume":"16 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12387737/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative in Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Sealing in Class I Composite Restorations Using Fifth- and Seventh-Generation Adhesives.\",\"authors\":\"Serban Talpos Niculescu, Ioana Veja, George-Dumitru Constantin, Ioana Elena Lile, Christos Armeniakos, Ioana Roxana Munteanu, Tareq Hajaj\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jfb16080301\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A major challenge in adhesive dentistry, often leading to restoration failure, is microleakage. This in vitro comparative study was designed to assess microleakage at the tooth-composite interface. The investigation aimed to compare the sealing efficacy of two commonly used adhesive systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Standardized Class I cavities were prepared on 20 extracted human molars and randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 each). Group A was treated with a fifth-generation total-etch adhesive (OptiBond™ Solo Plus, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), and Group B received a seventh-generation self-etch adhesive (Adhese® Universal VivaPen®, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). All restorations were completed using Herculite XRV composite resin. Microleakage was evaluated using dye penetration analysis after immersion in 2% methylene blue for 10 days, followed by longitudinal sectioning and microscopic measurement at 500× magnification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The fifth-generation adhesive group showed a mean microleakage of 0.2503 ± 0.1921 mm, while the seventh-generation group recorded 0.2484 ± 0.1764 mm. Statistical analysis using an independent t-test revealed no significant difference between the groups (<i>p</i> = 0.696).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both adhesive systems demonstrated comparable performance in minimizing microleakage under standardized conditions. Although the total-etch group exhibited slightly lower numerical values, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that both adhesive approaches can be clinically effective when applied appropriately.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15767,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Functional Biomaterials\",\"volume\":\"16 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12387737/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Functional Biomaterials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16080301\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Functional Biomaterials","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16080301","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, BIOMEDICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:微渗漏是粘接牙科面临的主要挑战,经常导致修复失败。该体外比较研究旨在评估牙齿-复合材料界面的微泄漏。本研究旨在比较两种常用胶粘剂体系的密封效果。方法:在20颗拔除的人磨牙上制备标准化I类空腔,随机分为两组,每组10颗。A组使用第五代全蚀刻胶(OptiBond™Solo Plus, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), B组使用第七代自蚀刻胶(Adhese®Universal VivaPen®,Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan,列支敦士登)。所有修复均使用Herculite XRV复合树脂完成。在2%亚甲蓝浸泡10天后,采用染料渗透分析评估微渗漏,然后进行纵向切片和500倍放大显微镜测量。结果:第五代粘接剂组平均微漏0.2503±0.1921 mm,第七代粘接剂组平均微漏0.2484±0.1764 mm。采用独立t检验进行统计学分析,组间差异无统计学意义(p = 0.696)。结论:在标准化条件下,两种胶粘剂系统在最小化微泄漏方面表现出相当的性能。虽然全蚀刻组的数值略低,但差异无统计学意义。这些发现表明,如果应用得当,这两种粘连入路在临床上都是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparative in Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Sealing in Class I Composite Restorations Using Fifth- and Seventh-Generation Adhesives.

Comparative in Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Sealing in Class I Composite Restorations Using Fifth- and Seventh-Generation Adhesives.

Comparative in Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Sealing in Class I Composite Restorations Using Fifth- and Seventh-Generation Adhesives.

Background: A major challenge in adhesive dentistry, often leading to restoration failure, is microleakage. This in vitro comparative study was designed to assess microleakage at the tooth-composite interface. The investigation aimed to compare the sealing efficacy of two commonly used adhesive systems.

Methods: Standardized Class I cavities were prepared on 20 extracted human molars and randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 each). Group A was treated with a fifth-generation total-etch adhesive (OptiBond™ Solo Plus, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), and Group B received a seventh-generation self-etch adhesive (Adhese® Universal VivaPen®, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). All restorations were completed using Herculite XRV composite resin. Microleakage was evaluated using dye penetration analysis after immersion in 2% methylene blue for 10 days, followed by longitudinal sectioning and microscopic measurement at 500× magnification.

Results: The fifth-generation adhesive group showed a mean microleakage of 0.2503 ± 0.1921 mm, while the seventh-generation group recorded 0.2484 ± 0.1764 mm. Statistical analysis using an independent t-test revealed no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.696).

Conclusions: Both adhesive systems demonstrated comparable performance in minimizing microleakage under standardized conditions. Although the total-etch group exhibited slightly lower numerical values, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that both adhesive approaches can be clinically effective when applied appropriately.

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
Journal of Functional Biomaterials
Journal of Functional Biomaterials Engineering-Biomedical Engineering
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.20%
发文量
226
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Functional Biomaterials (JFB, ISSN 2079-4983) is an international and interdisciplinary scientific journal that publishes regular research papers (articles), reviews and short communications about applications of materials for biomedical use. JFB covers subjects from chemistry, pharmacy, biology, physics over to engineering. The journal focuses on the preparation, performance and use of functional biomaterials in biomedical devices and their behaviour in physiological environments. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their results in as much detail as possible. Therefore, there is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Several topical special issues will be published. Scope: adhesion, adsorption, biocompatibility, biohybrid materials, bio-inert materials, biomaterials, biomedical devices, biomimetic materials, bone repair, cardiovascular devices, ceramics, composite materials, dental implants, dental materials, drug delivery systems, functional biopolymers, glasses, hyper branched polymers, molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), nanomedicine, nanoparticles, nanotechnology, natural materials, self-assembly smart materials, stimuli responsive materials, surface modification, tissue devices, tissue engineering, tissue-derived materials, urological devices.
×
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