Effect of open-sandwich vs. adhesive restorative techniques on enamel and dentine demineralization: An in situ study
Effect of open-sandwich vs. adhesive restorative techniques on enamel and dentine demineralization: An in situ study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jdent.2013.07.003
复制
发表时间：
2013-10-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Souza, Evelise M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kirsten, Giovanna A.;Rached, Rodrigo N.;Souza, Evelise M.
Objectives: To assess in situ the effect of different restorative techniques used with fluoride-releasing materials on enamel and dentine demineralization in the presence of a cariogenic challenge.Methods: Thirty human molars were prepared for 60 Class V cavities, with enamel and dentine margins. The teeth were divided into four groups (n = 15): L1 - open sandwich technique with a conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), L2 - open sandwich technique with a resin-modified GIC, A1 - total-etch bonding with a fluoride-containing adhesive, A2 total-etch bonding with a nonfluoride-containing adhesive.所有空腔均用纳米填充复合材料修复。十五名志愿者使用每组包含一个样本的器具。使用20%蔗糖溶液8次/天进行致龋攻击，持续7天。 The specimens were sectioned for microhardness test and EDS analysis at different depths below the enamel and dentine margins (25, 50 and 100 mm) and distances from the tooth-restoration interfaces (25 and 75 mm). The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Games-Howell test (a = 5%).Results: Both GICs produced higher hardness in enamel at all depth-and-distance combinations, but only L1 produced higher hardness in dentine (p < 0.05). L2 和 A1 在所有深度的 25 mm 距离处表现出相似的牙本质硬度 (p > 0.05)。 L1 demonstrated significantly higher amounts of calcium in dentine than the other groups, but had similar amounts in enamel to L2 and A1.Conclusions: The open sandwich technique using conventional GIC proved more effective in reducing enamel and dentine demineralization at depths of up to 100 mm under a cariogenic challenge. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 保留所有权利。
Objectives: To assess in situ the effect of different restorative techniques used with fluoride-releasing materials on enamel and dentine demineralization in the presence of a cariogenic challenge.Methods: Thirty human molars were prepared for 60 Class V cavities, with enamel and dentine margins. The teeth were divided into four groups (n = 15): L1 - open sandwich technique with a conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), L2 - open sandwich technique with a resin-modified GIC, A1 - total-etch bonding with a fluoride-containing adhesive, A2 total-etch bonding with a nonfluoride-containing adhesive. All the cavities were restored with a nanofilled composite. Fifteen volunteers used appliances containing one specimen from each group. The cariogenic challenge was carried out with a 20% sucrose solution 8x/day for 7 days. The specimens were sectioned for microhardness test and EDS analysis at different depths below the enamel and dentine margins (25, 50 and 100 mm) and distances from the tooth-restoration interfaces (25 and 75 mm). The data were analyzed by ANOVA and Games-Howell test (a = 5%).Results: Both GICs produced higher hardness in enamel at all depth-and-distance combinations, but only L1 produced higher hardness in dentine (p < 0.05). L2 and A1 exhibited similar dentine hardness at 25 mm distance for all depths (p > 0.05). L1 demonstrated significantly higher amounts of calcium in dentine than the other groups, but had similar amounts in enamel to L2 and A1.Conclusions: The open sandwich technique using conventional GIC proved more effective in reducing enamel and dentine demineralization at depths of up to 100 mm under a cariogenic challenge. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.