The role of cavity preparation and conditioning in the leakage of restorations.
The role of cavity preparation and conditioning in the leakage of restorations.
复制标题
空腔准备和调节在修复体渗漏中的作用。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Von Fraunhofer Ja
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kihn Pw;S. Pa;Von Fraunhofer Ja
目的
修复体微渗漏被认为是由窝洞预备、牙釉质蚀刻、牙本质调理的方法和位置以及修复材料决定的。这项研究比较了用碳化物和金刚石车针切割的制备物中的复合修复体的微渗漏以及用不同粘结剂/调节剂处理的复合修复体的微渗漏。
材料和方法
V 类制剂 (3 x 2 x 2 mm) 在 100 颗人类前磨牙中完全切入牙釉质或牙釉质和牙骨质。使用硬质合金车针制备二十颗牙齿，并使用 Prime&Bond NT 对制备物进行蚀刻和调节，但未修复。第二组 20 颗牙齿采用碳化物 (n = 10) 或金刚石 (n = 10) 切割的纯牙釉质预备体，并使用 Prisma TPH 对预备体进行蚀刻、调理 (Prime&Bond NT) 和修复。其他 60 颗牙齿被分为 3 组，每组 20 颗牙齿，每组仅使用牙釉质（n = 10）或牙釉质/牙骨质制剂（n = 10）。在使用 Prisma TPH 修复之前，这 3 组牙齿均使用 Optibond Solo、Clearfil SE Bond 或 Prompt-L-Pop 进行调节。从所有牙齿上切除2毫米的牙根，去除牙髓组织，并通过根管插入绝缘铜线以与牙髓腔顶部接触，然后密封牙线界面和牙根表面。将牙齿浸入 0.9% NaCl 中，并通过与直流电源和不锈钢反电极串联的电阻器上的 iR 压降来评估 30 天内的泄漏情况。
结果
对于用碳化物和金刚石切割的牙釉质制剂，发现泄漏存在差异（p < 0.05），并且泄漏与时间呈线性关系。牙釉质/牙骨质制剂显示出更大的渗漏，并且渗漏与时间的关系呈S形。仅经过调理的制剂表现出与经过调理和恢复的制剂相同的渗漏，而制剂渗漏随调理剂的不同而变化。
结论
型腔制备位置、切割方法和调节剂显着影响泄漏行为。
PURPOSE
Restoration microleakage is thought to be determined by the method and location of cavity preparation, enamel etching, and dentin conditioning, as well as the restorative material. This study compared the microleakage of composite restorations placed in preparations cut with carbide and diamond burs and those treated with different bonding/conditioning agents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Class V preparations (3 x 2 x 2 mm) were cut wholly in enamel or in enamel and cementum in 100 human premolars. Twenty teeth were prepared with carbide burs and the preparations etched and conditioned with Prime&Bond NT but not restored. A second set of 20 teeth had enamel-only preparations cut with carbides (n = 10) or diamonds (n = 10), and the preparations etched, conditioned (Prime&Bond NT) and restored with Prisma TPH. The other 60 teeth were divided into 3 groups of 20 teeth each with enamel-only (n = 10) or enamel/cementum preparations (n = 10). The 3 groups of teeth were conditioned with Optibond Solo, Clearfil SE Bond or Prompt-L-Pop prior to restoration with Prisma TPH. Two mm of root was resected from all teeth, pulpal tissue removed, and insulated copper wires inserted via the root canals to contact with the pulp chamber roof before the tooth-wire interfaces and root surfaces were sealed. The teeth were immersed in 0.9% NaCl and leakage assessed over 30 d by iR drop across a resistor in series with a DC source and stainless-steel counter electrode.
RESULTS
Differences (p < 0.05) in leakage were found for enamel preparations cut with carbides and diamonds, and the relationship of leakage vs time was linear. Enamel/cementum preparations showed greater leakage, and the relationship of leakage vs time was sigmoidal. Conditioned-only preparations showed the same leakage as those conditioned and restored, while preparation leakage varied with the conditioning agent.
CONCLUSION
Cavity preparation location, method of cutting, and the conditioning agent markedly affect leakage behavior.