摘要
目的比较两种树脂改良型玻璃离子水门汀和两种树脂复合体的边缘封闭性。方法选用40颗成人离体恒磨牙,制备Ⅴ类洞型,分别充填两种树脂改良型光固化玻璃离子水门汀(GCFujiⅡLC和VitremerTM)和两种多元酸修饰的树脂复合体(DyractAP和F2000TM)后行冷热交替试验(5℃和55℃,循环20次),扫描电镜观察充填体与牙体洞壁间边缘微漏,记录并比较界面中段微隙的总面积和平均宽度。结果各种充填材料在Ⅴ类洞牙合壁和龈壁的边缘封闭性无显著差异。VitremerTM和DyractAP在龈壁的边缘封闭性均优于牙合壁。结论树脂改良型光固化玻璃离子水门汀与树脂复合体的边缘封闭性相似。
ObjectiveTo assess the microleakage of Class restorations made with two resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGICs) and two polyacid-modified composite resins (PMCRs).MethodsRestorations of four materials (GC Fuji LC, Vitremer^(TM), Dyract AP and F2000^(TM)) were placed in the facial Class cavity preparations for forty noncarious human molar teeth.The teeth were randomly assigned to 4 experimental groups of 10 teeth each. After thermal cycling(20,5 and 55 ), the interface between dentin and restorations was spatter-coated with gold and observed under scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Then the square and average width of the margin gaps of central 1/3 interface were recorded with image analysis software.ResultsThe data indicated no significant differences between the restorative materials for both occlusal and gingival margins.However, further analysis revealed there were statistically significant differences between occlusal margins and gingival margins for Vitremer^(TM )and Dyract AP, respectively.ConclusionNone of the tested materials guaranteed margins free of microleakage. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements had similar margin gaps to the polyacid-modified composite resins tested.
出处
《上海第二医科大学学报》
CSCD
北大核心
2005年第7期698-701,共4页
Acta Universitatis Medicinalis Secondae Shanghai
关键词
树脂改良型玻璃离子水门汀
树脂复合体
微漏
<Keyword>resin-modified glass ionomer cement
polyacid-modified composite resin compomer
microleakage
