{"title":"牙汞合金修复体粘接系统的有效性评价","authors":"M. Ünal, F. Atakul","doi":"10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage. \nMethodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned bucco-palatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test. \nResults: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p<0.05). Microleakage within the control group was determined to be the highest, and statistically important differences were observed between the other groups. Group V (Amalgambond Plus) was determined to have the lowest microleakage scores. \nConclusion: In prepared class I cavities, amalgam adhesive systems are effective in preventing occlusal microleakage but do not completely blocked it. \n \nHow to cite this article: Ünal M, Atakul F. The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. Int Dent Res 2021;11(2):83-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5 \n \nLinguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.","PeriodicalId":31322,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations\",\"authors\":\"M. Ünal, F. Atakul\",\"doi\":\"10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage. \\nMethodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned bucco-palatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test. \\nResults: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p<0.05). Microleakage within the control group was determined to be the highest, and statistically important differences were observed between the other groups. Group V (Amalgambond Plus) was determined to have the lowest microleakage scores. \\nConclusion: In prepared class I cavities, amalgam adhesive systems are effective in preventing occlusal microleakage but do not completely blocked it. \\n \\nHow to cite this article: Ünal M, Atakul F. The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. Int Dent Res 2021;11(2):83-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5 \\n \\nLinguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Clinical Dental Research Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评价不同粘结体系在汞合金修复体中的效果及其对微渗漏的影响。方法:本研究选用无龋的人恒磨牙105颗。将牙齿随机分为5组(n=21),在每颗牙齿表面制造I类空腔。第一组是对照组,没有应用粘合剂系统。Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH,德国库克斯港)应用于第二组,Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH,德国法兰克福)应用于第三组,Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH,德国法兰克福)应用于第四组,Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA)应用于第五组,然后放置汞合金(Tytin, Kerr, California USA)修复体。抛光后,样品进行1000次热循环。在15倍放大的体视显微镜下,以0 ~ 4的标准分数线评估牙合壁微漏评分。每组随机选取1颗牙齿进行扫描电镜(SEM)扫描,并在不同的放大倍下拍摄银汞合金-牙齿硬组织界面的SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd, Cambridge UK)照片。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann Whitney U检验对微泄漏试验结果进行统计分析。结果:各组间微渗漏测定差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。对照组微渗漏发生率最高,其他组间差异有统计学意义。V组(银汞合金+)的微渗漏评分最低。结论:在制备的I类牙槽中,银汞合金黏合剂系统能有效防止牙合微漏,但不能完全阻断牙合微漏。本文引用方式:Ünal M, Atakul F.牙汞合金修复体粘接系统的有效性评价。国际医学杂志,2021;11(2):83-92。https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5语言修改:本手稿中的英语已由至少两名专业编辑检查,他们都是英语母语者。
The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of different adhesive systems in amalgam restorations and their effects on microleakage.
Methodology: In this study, 105 caries-free extracted human permanent molar teeth were used. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n=21), and class I cavities were created on the surface of each tooth. The first was a control group to which no adhesive system was applied. Amalgam Liner (VOCO GmbH, Cuxhaven Germany) was applied to Group II, Clearfil SE-Bond (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group III, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray Europe GmbH, Frankfurt Germany) was applied to Group IV, Amalgambond Plus (Parkell Inc.Edgewood, NY USA) was applied to Group V, and then amalgam (Tytin, Kerr, California USA) restorations were placed. After the polishing process, samples were subjected to thermocycling 1,000 times. Teeth were sectioned bucco-palatinally/lingually, and microleakage scores of the occlusal walls were evaluated under a stereomicroscope at 15X magnification by a standardized scale ranging from 0 to 4. One tooth was selected randomly from each group for SEM (Scanning Electron Microscope), and SEM LEO EVO 40 (LEO Ltd., Cambridge UK) photographs of amalgam-tooth hard tissue interfaces were also taken at different magnifications. The results of the microleakage tests were statistically analyzed by both the Kruskal-Wallis Test and the Mann Whitney U Test.
Results: In terms of microleakage among groups, the differences that were determined were significant (p<0.05). Microleakage within the control group was determined to be the highest, and statistically important differences were observed between the other groups. Group V (Amalgambond Plus) was determined to have the lowest microleakage scores.
Conclusion: In prepared class I cavities, amalgam adhesive systems are effective in preventing occlusal microleakage but do not completely blocked it.
How to cite this article: Ünal M, Atakul F. The evaluation of effectiveness of adhesive systems on dental amalgam restorations. Int Dent Res 2021;11(2):83-92. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no2.5
Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.