直接树脂复合材料封闭孔隙率的定量分析:材料类型影响的微ct研究。

IF 2.2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
International Journal of Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-09-22 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1155/ijod/3292581
Enas Mangoush, Lippo Lassila, Pekka K Vallittu, Sufyan Garoushi
{"title":"直接树脂复合材料封闭孔隙率的定量分析:材料类型影响的微ct研究。","authors":"Enas Mangoush, Lippo Lassila, Pekka K Vallittu, Sufyan Garoushi","doi":"10.1155/ijod/3292581","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> This study aimed to evaluate and compare the average pores size and closed porosity levels in different types of resin composites using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). <b>Materials and methods:</b> Ninety specimens (2.5 mm × 4 mm × 4 mm) were prepared using 15 different materials divided into 15 groups (<i>n</i> = 6/group). Groups were either conventional packable (Filtek Universal Restorative and G-aenial A'chord), conventional flowable (CLEARFIL MAJESTY ES Flow, G-aenial Flo X, and G-aenial Universal Injectable), bulk fill flowable (SDR flow+ and Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative), dual-cure (Gradia Core and CLEARFIL DC Core Plus), or fiber-reinforced composites (Nova Pro Flow, Fibrafill DENTIN, everX Flow with either Dentin or Bulk shade, and everX Posterior), in addition to one glass hybrid material (EQUIA Forte HT Fil). All specimens were scanned using a micro-CT machine (Bruker Skyscan 1272), and analyzed for the average size, volume percentage, and distribution of closed porosities. Data was analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk for normality, followed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD for group comparisons. Pearson correlation assessed the relation between the average size and the percentage of closed pores. <b>Results:</b> The results revealed significant differences in closed porosity levels among the tested groups. Filtek Universal Restorative exhibited the lowest porosity (0.049%), while Fibrafill DENTIN had the highest (4.78%) and the largest average pore size (0.996 mm³). In contrast, A'chord had the smallest average closed pore size (0.017 mm³) (<i>p</i>  < 0.05). When the composites were categorized into flowable and packable variants, a significant difference (<i>p</i>  < 0.05) was observed in the average percentage of closed pores, with flowable composites showing a lower porosity (0.31%) compared to packable composites (1.25%). <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings highlight the influence of material type on porosity formation, with larger pore sizes correlating with higher closed porosity percentages.</p>","PeriodicalId":13947,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Dentistry","volume":"2025 ","pages":"3292581"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479152/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantitative Analysis of Closed Porosity in Direct Resin Composites: A Micro-CT Study on the Influence of Material Type.\",\"authors\":\"Enas Mangoush, Lippo Lassila, Pekka K Vallittu, Sufyan Garoushi\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/ijod/3292581\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> This study aimed to evaluate and compare the average pores size and closed porosity levels in different types of resin composites using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). <b>Materials and methods:</b> Ninety specimens (2.5 mm × 4 mm × 4 mm) were prepared using 15 different materials divided into 15 groups (<i>n</i> = 6/group). Groups were either conventional packable (Filtek Universal Restorative and G-aenial A'chord), conventional flowable (CLEARFIL MAJESTY ES Flow, G-aenial Flo X, and G-aenial Universal Injectable), bulk fill flowable (SDR flow+ and Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative), dual-cure (Gradia Core and CLEARFIL DC Core Plus), or fiber-reinforced composites (Nova Pro Flow, Fibrafill DENTIN, everX Flow with either Dentin or Bulk shade, and everX Posterior), in addition to one glass hybrid material (EQUIA Forte HT Fil). All specimens were scanned using a micro-CT machine (Bruker Skyscan 1272), and analyzed for the average size, volume percentage, and distribution of closed porosities. Data was analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk for normality, followed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD for group comparisons. Pearson correlation assessed the relation between the average size and the percentage of closed pores. <b>Results:</b> The results revealed significant differences in closed porosity levels among the tested groups. Filtek Universal Restorative exhibited the lowest porosity (0.049%), while Fibrafill DENTIN had the highest (4.78%) and the largest average pore size (0.996 mm³). In contrast, A'chord had the smallest average closed pore size (0.017 mm³) (<i>p</i>  < 0.05). When the composites were categorized into flowable and packable variants, a significant difference (<i>p</i>  < 0.05) was observed in the average percentage of closed pores, with flowable composites showing a lower porosity (0.31%) compared to packable composites (1.25%). <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings highlight the influence of material type on porosity formation, with larger pore sizes correlating with higher closed porosity percentages.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"2025 \",\"pages\":\"3292581\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12479152/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijod/3292581\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/ijod/3292581","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在利用微计算机断层扫描(micro-CT)评价和比较不同类型树脂复合材料的平均孔隙大小和封闭孔隙度水平。材料与方法:采用15种不同的材料制备90个标本(2.5 mm × 4 mm × 4 mm),分为15组(n = 6/组)。组分为常规可包装(Filtek Universal Restorative和g - enial A'chord)、常规可流动(CLEARFIL MAJESTY ES Flow、g - enial Flo X和g - enial Universal Injectable)、可流动填充(SDR Flow +和Filtek bulk fill flowable Restorative)、双固化(Gradia Core和CLEARFIL DC Core Plus)或纤维增强复合材料(Nova Pro Flow、Fibrafill DENTIN、带有牙本质或bulk shade的everX Flow和everX Posterior)。除了一种玻璃杂化材料(EQUIA Forte HT Fil)。所有样品均使用微型ct机(Bruker Skyscan 1272)进行扫描,并分析封闭孔隙的平均大小、体积百分比和分布。采用Shapiro-Wilk法分析数据的正态性,然后用Tukey’s HSD进行双向方差分析进行组间比较。皮尔逊相关性评估了平均大小与封闭孔隙百分比之间的关系。结果:结果显示,在测试组之间的封闭孔隙度水平有显著差异。Filtek Universal Restorative的孔隙率最低(0.049%),Fibrafill DENTIN最高(4.78%),平均孔径最大(0.996 mm³)。A'chord的平均封闭孔径最小(0.017 mm³)(p < 0.05)。将复合材料分为可流动型和可包装型时,平均孔隙封闭率差异有统计学意义(p < 0.05),可流动型复合材料的孔隙率(0.31%)低于可包装型复合材料(1.25%)。结论:研究结果突出了材料类型对孔隙形成的影响,孔径越大,封闭孔隙率越高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Quantitative Analysis of Closed Porosity in Direct Resin Composites: A Micro-CT Study on the Influence of Material Type.

Quantitative Analysis of Closed Porosity in Direct Resin Composites: A Micro-CT Study on the Influence of Material Type.

Quantitative Analysis of Closed Porosity in Direct Resin Composites: A Micro-CT Study on the Influence of Material Type.

Quantitative Analysis of Closed Porosity in Direct Resin Composites: A Micro-CT Study on the Influence of Material Type.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the average pores size and closed porosity levels in different types of resin composites using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and methods: Ninety specimens (2.5 mm × 4 mm × 4 mm) were prepared using 15 different materials divided into 15 groups (n = 6/group). Groups were either conventional packable (Filtek Universal Restorative and G-aenial A'chord), conventional flowable (CLEARFIL MAJESTY ES Flow, G-aenial Flo X, and G-aenial Universal Injectable), bulk fill flowable (SDR flow+ and Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative), dual-cure (Gradia Core and CLEARFIL DC Core Plus), or fiber-reinforced composites (Nova Pro Flow, Fibrafill DENTIN, everX Flow with either Dentin or Bulk shade, and everX Posterior), in addition to one glass hybrid material (EQUIA Forte HT Fil). All specimens were scanned using a micro-CT machine (Bruker Skyscan 1272), and analyzed for the average size, volume percentage, and distribution of closed porosities. Data was analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk for normality, followed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD for group comparisons. Pearson correlation assessed the relation between the average size and the percentage of closed pores. Results: The results revealed significant differences in closed porosity levels among the tested groups. Filtek Universal Restorative exhibited the lowest porosity (0.049%), while Fibrafill DENTIN had the highest (4.78%) and the largest average pore size (0.996 mm³). In contrast, A'chord had the smallest average closed pore size (0.017 mm³) (p  < 0.05). When the composites were categorized into flowable and packable variants, a significant difference (p  < 0.05) was observed in the average percentage of closed pores, with flowable composites showing a lower porosity (0.31%) compared to packable composites (1.25%). Conclusion: The findings highlight the influence of material type on porosity formation, with larger pore sizes correlating with higher closed porosity percentages.

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
International Journal of Dentistry
International Journal of Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
219
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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