36 至 48 个月后对 V 级复合树脂修复体边缘和内部界面完整性的 OCT 评估。

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Rainer Haak, Philip Schäfer, Bettina Hanßen, Dirk Ziebolz, Kyung Jin Park, Matthias Häfer, Gerhard Schmalz, Hartmut Schneider
{"title":"36 至 48 个月后对 V 级复合树脂修复体边缘和内部界面完整性的 OCT 评估。","authors":"Rainer Haak, Philip Schäfer, Bettina Hanßen, Dirk Ziebolz, Kyung Jin Park, Matthias Häfer, Gerhard Schmalz, Hartmut Schneider","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b2916433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare a self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in terms of internal and marginal composite-tooth bond failure separately on enamel and dentin/cement at 36-48 months after restoration placement using optical coherence tomography (OCT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-seven patients with two or three class V composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions 36-48 months after placement were included. The one-step self-etch adhesive Futurabond M ([Voco] group SE, n = 25) and the two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Solobond M ([Voco] group ER, n = 20) combined with the nanohybrid composite Amaris (Voco) were evaluated. The four-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Syntac classic combined with Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent) served as the control (n = 18). Spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT, 1310-nm center wavelength) was applied. Marginal gaps and internal interfacial adhesive defects were quantified in cross-sectional OCT images. Groups were statistically compared using the Friedman/Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In enamel, nonsignificantly different percentages of marginal gap formation and internal interfacial adhesive defects were found between the groups (pi ≥ 0.258). In dentin/cement, SE showed significantly less marginal gap formation compared to ER (p < 0.001) and control (p = 0.001), and at the internal dentin-composite interface less adhesive defects were found compared to ER (p < 0.001) and control (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The self-etch adhesive used in the current study appears recommendable for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions with composite.</p>","PeriodicalId":38848,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","volume":"9 1","pages":"165-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"OCT Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Interface Integrity of Class V Composite Restorations after 36 to 48 Months.\",\"authors\":\"Rainer Haak, Philip Schäfer, Bettina Hanßen, Dirk Ziebolz, Kyung Jin Park, Matthias Häfer, Gerhard Schmalz, Hartmut Schneider\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b2916433\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare a self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in terms of internal and marginal composite-tooth bond failure separately on enamel and dentin/cement at 36-48 months after restoration placement using optical coherence tomography (OCT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-seven patients with two or three class V composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions 36-48 months after placement were included. The one-step self-etch adhesive Futurabond M ([Voco] group SE, n = 25) and the two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Solobond M ([Voco] group ER, n = 20) combined with the nanohybrid composite Amaris (Voco) were evaluated. The four-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Syntac classic combined with Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent) served as the control (n = 18). Spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT, 1310-nm center wavelength) was applied. Marginal gaps and internal interfacial adhesive defects were quantified in cross-sectional OCT images. Groups were statistically compared using the Friedman/Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In enamel, nonsignificantly different percentages of marginal gap formation and internal interfacial adhesive defects were found between the groups (pi ≥ 0.258). In dentin/cement, SE showed significantly less marginal gap formation compared to ER (p < 0.001) and control (p = 0.001), and at the internal dentin-composite interface less adhesive defects were found compared to ER (p < 0.001) and control (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The self-etch adhesive used in the current study appears recommendable for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions with composite.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38848,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"165-174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2916433\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2916433","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:使用光学相干断层扫描(OCT)比较自酸蚀粘接剂和两步腐蚀-冲洗粘接剂在修复体植入后 36-48 个月分别在釉质和牙本质/牙釉质内部和边缘复合材料-牙齿粘接失败的情况:研究对象包括 27 名在镶牙 36-48 个月后对非龋性牙颈病变进行了 2 或 3 次 V 级复合树脂修复的患者。对一步式自酸蚀粘接剂 Futurabond M([Voco] SE 组,n = 25)和两步式蚀洗粘接剂 Solobond M([Voco] ER 组,n = 20)与纳米杂化复合材料 Amaris(Voco)的组合进行了评估。四步腐蚀-冲洗粘合剂 Syntac classic 与 Tetric EvoCeram(Ivoclar Vivadent)组合作为对照组(n = 18)。应用光谱域 OCT(SD-OCT,中心波长 1310-nm)。在横截面 OCT 图像中对边缘间隙和内部界面粘合缺陷进行量化。采用 Friedman/Wilcoxon 检验(α = 0.05)对各组进行统计比较:在釉质中,各组间边缘间隙形成和内部界面粘附缺陷的百分比差异不显著(pi ≥ 0.258)。在牙本质/水泥中,与ER组(p < 0.001)和对照组(p = 0.001)相比,SE组的边缘间隙形成明显较少;与ER组(p < 0.001)和对照组(p = 0.003)相比,SE组的内部牙本质-复合材料界面粘接缺陷较少:结论:本研究中使用的自酸蚀粘接剂适用于非龋性牙颈病变的复合树脂修复。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
OCT Evaluation of Marginal and Internal Interface Integrity of Class V Composite Restorations after 36 to 48 Months.

Purpose: To compare a self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in terms of internal and marginal composite-tooth bond failure separately on enamel and dentin/cement at 36-48 months after restoration placement using optical coherence tomography (OCT).

Materials and methods: Twenty-seven patients with two or three class V composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions 36-48 months after placement were included. The one-step self-etch adhesive Futurabond M ([Voco] group SE, n = 25) and the two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Solobond M ([Voco] group ER, n = 20) combined with the nanohybrid composite Amaris (Voco) were evaluated. The four-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Syntac classic combined with Tetric EvoCeram (Ivoclar Vivadent) served as the control (n = 18). Spectral-domain OCT (SD-OCT, 1310-nm center wavelength) was applied. Marginal gaps and internal interfacial adhesive defects were quantified in cross-sectional OCT images. Groups were statistically compared using the Friedman/Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05).

Results: In enamel, nonsignificantly different percentages of marginal gap formation and internal interfacial adhesive defects were found between the groups (pi ≥ 0.258). In dentin/cement, SE showed significantly less marginal gap formation compared to ER (p < 0.001) and control (p = 0.001), and at the internal dentin-composite interface less adhesive defects were found compared to ER (p < 0.001) and control (p = 0.003).

Conclusion: The self-etch adhesive used in the current study appears recommendable for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions with composite.

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
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society
Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society Arts and Humanities-History and Philosophy of Science
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
×
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