固化方式和分层技术对深度i类修复体填充树脂复合材料三维界面间隙的影响:微ct体积研究。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Allegra Comba, Andrea Baldi, Riccardo Michelotto Tempesta, Edoardo Alberto Vergano, Mario Alovisi, Damiano Pasqualini, Nicola Scotti
{"title":"固化方式和分层技术对深度i类修复体填充树脂复合材料三维界面间隙的影响:微ct体积研究。","authors":"Allegra Comba,&nbsp;Andrea Baldi,&nbsp;Riccardo Michelotto Tempesta,&nbsp;Edoardo Alberto Vergano,&nbsp;Mario Alovisi,&nbsp;Damiano Pasqualini,&nbsp;Nicola Scotti","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b2000229","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To three-dimensionally evaluate the interfacial gap of bulk-fill resin composites applied in deep Class-I restorations with different layering techniques and curing modes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Ninety-six (n = 96) samples were prepared with standardized deep Class-I cavities and adhesive procedures. Four materials were tested: SDR (SDR), SonicFill2 (SF), Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFXT), Filtek Supreme XTE (FS). Four subgroups (n = 6) were created according to layering and curing techniques: 2+2mm increments with soft start curing (SG1), 2+2 mm with conventional curing (SG2), a 4-mm increment with soft start curing (SG3), a 4-mm increment with conventional curing (SG4). All samples underwent micro-CT scans; afterwards, voids surrounding the restorations automatically underwent a thresholding procedure (Mimics, Materialise; Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems) to analyze the 3D interfacial gap. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA with Tukey's test (significance p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant differences were reported between materials, layering techniques and their interaction. No statistically significant differences were reported for polymerisation mode. Bulk-fill materials showed average interfacial gap volumes ranging from 0.031 mm3 to 0.200 mm3, while FS showed volumes ranging from 0.416 mm3 to 1200 mm3.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All bulk-fill materials performed statistically significantly better than did FS (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between them. Curing mode did not influence interfacial gap volume in any group (p > 0.05), while bulk-filling vs layering influenced the volume of interfacial gaps only in the FS group, which performied better when incrementally applied. Regarding gap localisation, the floor of the cavity was the area with the highest likelihood of gaps in all samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"23 5","pages":"421-428"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Curing Mode and Layering Technique on the 3D Interfacial Gap of Bulk-fill Resin Composites in Deep Class-I Restorations: A Micro-CT Volumetric Study.\",\"authors\":\"Allegra Comba,&nbsp;Andrea Baldi,&nbsp;Riccardo Michelotto Tempesta,&nbsp;Edoardo Alberto Vergano,&nbsp;Mario Alovisi,&nbsp;Damiano Pasqualini,&nbsp;Nicola Scotti\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b2000229\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To three-dimensionally evaluate the interfacial gap of bulk-fill resin composites applied in deep Class-I restorations with different layering techniques and curing modes.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Ninety-six (n = 96) samples were prepared with standardized deep Class-I cavities and adhesive procedures. Four materials were tested: SDR (SDR), SonicFill2 (SF), Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFXT), Filtek Supreme XTE (FS). Four subgroups (n = 6) were created according to layering and curing techniques: 2+2mm increments with soft start curing (SG1), 2+2 mm with conventional curing (SG2), a 4-mm increment with soft start curing (SG3), a 4-mm increment with conventional curing (SG4). All samples underwent micro-CT scans; afterwards, voids surrounding the restorations automatically underwent a thresholding procedure (Mimics, Materialise; Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems) to analyze the 3D interfacial gap. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA with Tukey's test (significance p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant differences were reported between materials, layering techniques and their interaction. No statistically significant differences were reported for polymerisation mode. Bulk-fill materials showed average interfacial gap volumes ranging from 0.031 mm3 to 0.200 mm3, while FS showed volumes ranging from 0.416 mm3 to 1200 mm3.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All bulk-fill materials performed statistically significantly better than did FS (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between them. Curing mode did not influence interfacial gap volume in any group (p > 0.05), while bulk-filling vs layering influenced the volume of interfacial gaps only in the FS group, which performied better when incrementally applied. Regarding gap localisation, the floor of the cavity was the area with the highest likelihood of gaps in all samples.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"23 5\",\"pages\":\"421-428\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2000229\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2000229","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的:对不同铺层工艺和固化方式的体块填充树脂复合材料在ⅰ类深度修复体中的界面间隙进行三维评价。材料和方法:96个样品(n = 96)采用标准化的Class-I深腔和粘接程序制备。测试了四种材料:SDR (SDR)、SonicFill2 (SF)、Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFXT)、Filtek Supreme XTE (FS)。根据分层和固化技术创建了四个亚组(n = 6):软启动固化增量2+2mm (SG1),常规固化增量2+2mm (SG2),软启动固化增量4 mm (SG3),常规固化增量4 mm (SG4)。所有样本都进行了显微ct扫描;之后,修复体周围的空隙自动进行阈值处理(Mimics, Materialise;Geomagic Studio 12 (3D Systems)来分析三维界面间隙。统计学分析采用三向方差分析,采用Tukey检验(p < 0.05)。结果:材料、分层技术及其相互作用之间的差异有统计学意义。聚合方式的差异无统计学意义。块体填充材料的平均界面间隙体积在0.031 ~ 0.200 mm3之间,FS的平均界面间隙体积在0.416 ~ 1200 mm3之间。结论:所有体块填充材料的性能均优于FS (p < 0.05),两者之间无统计学差异。固化方式对两组的界面间隙体积均无影响(p > 0.05),而填充与分层只对FS组的界面间隙体积有影响,且FS组的效果更好。关于缝隙定位,空腔的地板是所有样品中缝隙可能性最高的区域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Influence of Curing Mode and Layering Technique on the 3D Interfacial Gap of Bulk-fill Resin Composites in Deep Class-I Restorations: A Micro-CT Volumetric Study.

Purpose: To three-dimensionally evaluate the interfacial gap of bulk-fill resin composites applied in deep Class-I restorations with different layering techniques and curing modes.

Materials and methods: Ninety-six (n = 96) samples were prepared with standardized deep Class-I cavities and adhesive procedures. Four materials were tested: SDR (SDR), SonicFill2 (SF), Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFXT), Filtek Supreme XTE (FS). Four subgroups (n = 6) were created according to layering and curing techniques: 2+2mm increments with soft start curing (SG1), 2+2 mm with conventional curing (SG2), a 4-mm increment with soft start curing (SG3), a 4-mm increment with conventional curing (SG4). All samples underwent micro-CT scans; afterwards, voids surrounding the restorations automatically underwent a thresholding procedure (Mimics, Materialise; Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems) to analyze the 3D interfacial gap. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA with Tukey's test (significance p < 0.05).

Results: Statistically significant differences were reported between materials, layering techniques and their interaction. No statistically significant differences were reported for polymerisation mode. Bulk-fill materials showed average interfacial gap volumes ranging from 0.031 mm3 to 0.200 mm3, while FS showed volumes ranging from 0.416 mm3 to 1200 mm3.

Conclusions: All bulk-fill materials performed statistically significantly better than did FS (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between them. Curing mode did not influence interfacial gap volume in any group (p > 0.05), while bulk-filling vs layering influenced the volume of interfacial gaps only in the FS group, which performied better when incrementally applied. Regarding gap localisation, the floor of the cavity was the area with the highest likelihood of gaps in all samples.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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