3种复合树脂充填V类洞的微渗漏比较研究

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2017.03.001

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的比较义获嘉N Ceram纳米瓷化树脂、N Flow流动树脂及Bulk Fill三次方大块充填树脂充填上颌前磨牙V类洞后树脂充填体边缘的微渗漏情况,评估3种不同复合树脂的抗微渗漏性能,寻找较好的充填V类洞的复合树脂材料。方法选取牙体完整、健康的人离体前磨牙66颗,随机分为3组（n=22）。所有样本牙在颊侧颈部制备标准V类箱状洞型（长4 mm、宽3 mm、深2 mm）。3组试验牙经选择性釉质酸蚀自黏结后,分别使用N Ceram纳米瓷化树脂（A组）、N Flow流动树脂（B组）及Bulk Fill三次方大块充填树脂（C组）进行充填。充填完成后,3组试验牙均行弱光启动固化,打磨抛光。将3组样本进行1500个周期的冷热循环,2%亚甲基蓝浸泡染色7 d,然后沿牙体颊舌向切片。每组随机选取2颗样本牙,在扫描电镜下观察牙体-充填体交界面的密合程度;其余60颗样本牙在体视显微镜下（×40）观察剖面充填体的微渗漏情况。采用Spot Advanced软件测量微渗漏深度,并根据0~3分分别给、龈壁微渗漏程度评分。采用SPSS17.0软件包对各组的微渗漏深度分别进行Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验和Mann-Whitney检验。结果义获嘉Bulk Fill组树脂在3组中龈壁的微渗漏最小,且与另外2组相比有显著差异,N Ceram纳米树脂组与N Flow流动树脂组龈壁的微渗漏均较高（P<0.05）;3组复合树脂材料壁的微渗漏无显著差异（P>0.05）;3组树脂壁的微渗漏值均比龈壁小且差异显著（P<0.05）。结论3组树脂在壁的微渗漏值无显著差异。义获嘉Bulk Fill组树脂充填V类洞时,在3组中龈壁的微渗漏最小,且与另外2种树脂之间有显著差异。

关键词: V类洞, 微渗漏, 聚合收缩, 大块充填树脂

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare and evaluate microleakage at the occlusal wall and cervical wall in Class V cavities restored with Ivoclar Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill composite, Tetric N Flow composite and N Ceram nanocomposite. METHODS: Sixty-six extracted human maxillary premolars, which were intact and healthy, were randomly assigned into 3 groups (n=22). Standardized Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of maxillary premolars. The occlusal walls of the cavities were located on the enamel and the cervical walls were located on dentin and cementum. After etching and application of the same bonding agents, the cavities were restored with different composite materials. Group A: Tetric N Ceram nano-hybrid composite , Group B: Tetric N Flow nano-hybrid composite, Group C: Tetric N Ceram Bulk Fill nano-hybrid composite. After curing with soft-start mode, finishing and polishing, the specimens were subjected to thermocycling. The specimens were coated with nail varnish, and immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 7 days. The teeth were then sectioned longitudinally. Two of the samples chosen randomly from each group were evaluated under scanning electron microscope. Dye penetration of the remaining samples was examined with a stereomicroscope (×40) and scored separately for occlusal and gingival aspect on a 0-3 ordinal scale. The leakage depth was measured with Spot Advanced version 4.6 software package. The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon test using SPSS 17.0 software package. RESULTS: Tetric Bulk Fill had significantly less microleakage at the cervical margins than other groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference at the occlusal margin (P>0.05) between the three groups. There was significant difference between the enamel and cervical wall microleakage (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the limitations of this study, Tetric Bulk Fill provided the least microleakage at the cervical wall among the three groups. There was no significant difference at the occlusal margin.

Key words: Class V cavities, Microleakage, Polymerization shrinkage, Bulk fill composite

中图分类号:

R783.1

朱晸, 朱亚琴. 3种复合树脂充填V类洞的微渗漏比较研究[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2017, 26(3): 241-245.

ZHU Zheng, ZHU Ya-qin. Comparative evaluation of marginal microleakage of three different resins in Class V composite restorations[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 26(3): 241-245.

参考文献

[1] Sooraparaju SG, Kanumuru PK, Nujella SK, et al. A comparative evaluation of microleakage in class Ⅴ composite restorations [J]. Int J Dent, 2014: 685643.
[2] Sharma RD, Sharma J, Rani A. Comparative evaluation of marginal adaptation between nanocomposites and microhybrid composites exposed to two light cure units [J]. Indian J Dent Res, 2011, 22(3): 495.
[3] Alonso RC, Cunha LG, De Goes MF, et al. Association of photoactivation methods and low modulus liners on marginal adaptation of composite restorations [J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 2004, 62(6) : 298-304.
[4] Sadeghi M. An in vitro microleakage study of class V cavities restored with a new self-adhesive flowable composite resin versus different flowable materials [J]. Dent Res J (Isfahan), 2012, 9(4): 460-465.
[5] Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs conventional resin based composites [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2014, 18(8): 1991-2000.
[6] Yikilgan I, Akgul S, Özcan S, et al. An in vitro evaluation of the effects of desensitizing agents on microleakage of Class Ⅴ cavities [J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2016, 8(1): e55-59.
[7] Ozel E, Tuna EB, Firatli S, et al. Effect of different parameters of Er:YAG laser irradiations on Class Ⅴ composite restorations: A scanning electron microscopy study[J]. Scanning, 2016, 38(5): 434-441.
[8] Alonso RC, Sinhoreti MA, Correr Sobrinho L, et al. Effect of resin liners on the microleakage of class V dental composite restorations [J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2004, 12(1): 56-61.
[9] Ferracane JL. Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization [J]. Dent Mater, 2005, 21(1): 36-42.
[10] Moon PC, Tabassian MS, Culbreath TE. Flow characteristics and film thickness of flowable resin composites [J]. Oper Dent, 2002, 27(3): 248-253.
[11] Estafan D, Estafan A, Leinfelder KF. Cavity wall adaptation of resin-based composites lined with flowable composites [J]. Am J Dent, 2000, 13(4): 192-194.
[12] Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2013, 17(1): 227-235.
[13] Leprince JG, Palin WM, Hadis MA, et al. Progress in dimethacrylate based dental composite technology and curing efficiency [J]. Dent Mater, 2013, 29(2): 139-156.
[14] Floyd CJ, Dickens SH. Network structure of Bis-GMA- and UDMA-based resin systems [J]. Dent Mater, 2006, 22(12): 1143-1149.
[15] Jang JH, Park SH, Hwang IN. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly filled flowable resin [J]. Oper Dent, 2015, 40(2): 172-180.
[16] Burke FJ, Crisp RJ, James A, et al. Two year clinical evaluation of a low-shrink resin composite material in UK general dental practices [J]. Dent Mater, 2011, 27(7): 622-630.
[17] Furness A, Tadros MY, Looney SW, et al. Effect of bulk/incremental fill on internal gap formation of bulk-fill composites [J]. J Dent, 2014, 42(4): 439-449.
[18] Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance [J]. Oper Dent, 2013, 38(6): 618-625.
[19] Kubo S, Yokota H, Yokota H, et al. Three-year clinical evaluation of a flowable and a hybrid resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions [J]. J Dent, 2010, 38(3): 191-200.
[20] Lokhande NA, Padmai AS, Rathore VP, et al. Effectiveness of flowable resin composite in reducing microleakage-an in vitro study [J]. J Int Oral Health, 2014, 6(3): 111-114.
[21] Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, et al. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on Class II composite restorations [J]. Oper Dent, 2004, 29(3): 301-308.
[22] Kimyai S, Ajami AA, Chaharom ME, et al. Comparison of microleakage of three adhesive systems in classⅤcomposite restorations prepared with Er, Cr:YSGG laser [J]. Photomed Laser Surg, 2010, 28(4): 505-510.
[23] 董世涛 , 张晗 , 刘国华. 流动性纳米复合树脂充填V类洞微渗漏研究 [J] .临床和实验医学杂志, 2014,13(2): 87-90.
[24] Conte NR Jr, Goodchild JH. Flowable Composites Resins: do they decrease microleakage and shrinkage stress? [J]. Compend Contin Educ Dent, 2013, 34 (4):1-6.
[25] Zorzin J, Maier E, Harre S, et al. Bulk-fill resin composites: polymerization properties and extended light curing[J]. Dent Mater, 2015, 31(3): 293-301.