两种散装填料与一种常规复合材料在II类后牙修复中的微渗漏研究。

Shahram Mosharrafian, Alireza Heidari, Pegah Rahbar
{"title":"两种散装填料与一种常规复合材料在II类后牙修复中的微渗漏研究。","authors":"Shahram Mosharrafian,&nbsp;Alireza Heidari,&nbsp;Pegah Rahbar","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess and compare the microleakage of two bulk fill and one conventional composite in class II restorations of primary posterior teeth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This in vitro, experimental study was conducted on 60 primary mandibular second molars, which were randomly divided into three groups. Standard class II cavities were prepared in teeth and restored with 3M bulk fill composite in group 1, SonicFill bulk fill composite in group 2 and Z250 conventional composite in group 3. Single Bond 2 bonding agent was used in all cavities. The teeth were then thermocycled and immersed in 1M silver nitrate solution. The teeth were then mesiodistally sectioned and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at×10 magnification. Dye penetration depth was recorded in microns and data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean (± standard deviation) dye penetration depth in the gingival margins was 543±523μm, 343±290μm and 597±590μm for 3M bulk fill, SonicFill and Z250 conventional composite, respectively. These values were 214±93μm, 302±127μm and 199±145μm in the occlusal margins, respectively. The three groups were not significantly different in terms of occlusal or gingival microleakage (P>0.05), but gingival margins showed significantly higher microleakage than occlusal margins in all three groups (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bulk fill composites are not significantly different from conventional composites in terms of microleakage.</p>","PeriodicalId":30286,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences","volume":"14 3","pages":"123-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694844/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill and One Conventional Composite in Class II Restorations of Primary Posterior Teeth.\",\"authors\":\"Shahram Mosharrafian,&nbsp;Alireza Heidari,&nbsp;Pegah Rahbar\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess and compare the microleakage of two bulk fill and one conventional composite in class II restorations of primary posterior teeth.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This in vitro, experimental study was conducted on 60 primary mandibular second molars, which were randomly divided into three groups. Standard class II cavities were prepared in teeth and restored with 3M bulk fill composite in group 1, SonicFill bulk fill composite in group 2 and Z250 conventional composite in group 3. Single Bond 2 bonding agent was used in all cavities. The teeth were then thermocycled and immersed in 1M silver nitrate solution. The teeth were then mesiodistally sectioned and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at×10 magnification. Dye penetration depth was recorded in microns and data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean (± standard deviation) dye penetration depth in the gingival margins was 543±523μm, 343±290μm and 597±590μm for 3M bulk fill, SonicFill and Z250 conventional composite, respectively. These values were 214±93μm, 302±127μm and 199±145μm in the occlusal margins, respectively. The three groups were not significantly different in terms of occlusal or gingival microleakage (P>0.05), but gingival margins showed significantly higher microleakage than occlusal margins in all three groups (P<0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bulk fill composites are not significantly different from conventional composites in terms of microleakage.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":30286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"14 3\",\"pages\":\"123-131\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5694844/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估和比较两种散装填料和一种常规复合材料在II类后牙修复中的微渗漏。材料与方法:选择60颗初生下颌第二磨牙进行体外实验研究,随机分为3组。1组采用3M填充型填充复合材料,2组采用SonicFill填充型填充复合材料,3组采用Z250常规复合材料进行修复。所有牙槽均采用单键2型粘结剂。然后将牙齿热循环并浸泡在1M硝酸银溶液中。然后在立体显微镜at×10放大下对牙齿进行中远切面和评估。染料渗透深度以微米为单位记录,数据采用单因素方差分析。结果:3M填充剂、SonicFill剂和Z250常规复合剂的牙龈边缘染料渗透深度平均值(±标准差)分别为543±523μm、343±290μm和597±590μm。这些值分别为214±93μm、302±127μm和199±145μm。三组牙合及牙龈微漏量差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),但龈缘微漏量均显著高于牙合缘(P结论:填充复合材料与常规复合材料微漏量差异无统计学意义)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill and One Conventional Composite in Class II Restorations of Primary Posterior Teeth.

Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill and One Conventional Composite in Class II Restorations of Primary Posterior Teeth.

Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill and One Conventional Composite in Class II Restorations of Primary Posterior Teeth.

Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill and One Conventional Composite in Class II Restorations of Primary Posterior Teeth.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess and compare the microleakage of two bulk fill and one conventional composite in class II restorations of primary posterior teeth.

Materials and methods: This in vitro, experimental study was conducted on 60 primary mandibular second molars, which were randomly divided into three groups. Standard class II cavities were prepared in teeth and restored with 3M bulk fill composite in group 1, SonicFill bulk fill composite in group 2 and Z250 conventional composite in group 3. Single Bond 2 bonding agent was used in all cavities. The teeth were then thermocycled and immersed in 1M silver nitrate solution. The teeth were then mesiodistally sectioned and evaluated under a stereomicroscope at×10 magnification. Dye penetration depth was recorded in microns and data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

Results: The mean (± standard deviation) dye penetration depth in the gingival margins was 543±523μm, 343±290μm and 597±590μm for 3M bulk fill, SonicFill and Z250 conventional composite, respectively. These values were 214±93μm, 302±127μm and 199±145μm in the occlusal margins, respectively. The three groups were not significantly different in terms of occlusal or gingival microleakage (P>0.05), but gingival margins showed significantly higher microleakage than occlusal margins in all three groups (P<0.05).

Conclusions: Bulk fill composites are not significantly different from conventional composites in terms of microleakage.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信